Anyone else want a lot of kids?

[Austin]

So I have a legitimate question that may ruffle some feathers: for all of you who want big families (e.g, 4+ kids), can you REALLY afford it? And I don't mean simply feeding and putting clothes on their backs. Can you afford to send them to college without six-figure loans? Can you afford for each kid to have a unique hobby that is enjoyable to them (whether it be art, music, football)? Do they get to spend time with adults (parent's friends, etc.) or are they always relegated to the kid's table with their siblings?

That has always been my deciding factor in having kids. My parents had only one child because they wanted to give me the world. I picked a very expensive hobby, much to their chagrin, that wouldn't have been possible for me to pursue with other kids in the picture. Not to mention that my cumulative years of schooling were well into the 6-figures.

I wouldn't want anything less for my children and wouldn't ever want them to feel limited as to what interests they can pursue or where they can get their education. Having multiples limits that severely in many, many instances so I wonder why people do it just for the sake of having a big family. Why not bless one child with the best of everything than have four kids wearing hand-me-downs and eating Velveeta? It's not like we don't already have an overpopulation problem.

(I was a very, very happy only, FWIW. So much so that I would like to just have one myself.)

So I take it you have no kids yourself, right?

We've raised three on a schoolteachers salary alone for the 10 years that I was a SAHM. They are all young adults now and I think they would agree with my opinion, which is that the most important thing for kids is love and security, experiences and opportunities. I know plenty of parents that do all of that very well on the cheap, and love doesn't cost a thing. There are plenty of great opportunities in the community and we always made it a priority to travel and take vacations, because having experiences together was very important to us. Some of these were very budgeted affairs, and in the last ten years they've been much nicer because I went back to work in 2000. I bet you can't guess which ones the boys still talk about (hint: not the expensive cruise or the week at Disney).

It is important to know that you can provide for basic needs, such as food, shelter, clothing, health care, and the like (beyond all hand-me-downs and Velveeta). Beyond that, I don't think finances is the most important factor in having kids.

BTW, you shouldn't be so snotty about hand-me-downs. Small children wear clothes for a very short period of time because of their rapid growth, and if one knows how to do laundry, clothes can look almost new after one child. We had all boys, so the younger two wore some hand-me-downs. They don't seem any worse for the wear (pun intended).

[Littlebirdy]

Sorry, but love is not a substitute for a hobby or unique interest. Does it need to be expensive? No, it just so happened that mine was. But you can't honestly say that you could tell your child "Oh, it's okay Susie, we know you love playing the violin, but we can't afford it so love will be enough!" and feel okay about that. Don't you guys always rail on the Duggars for their kids being unable to pursue individual interests? This is just a lesser version of that.

The Duggars are not like most families. Much of what they do is based on trying to keep their children sheltered from the evil worldly ways. Most parents DO try to give their children access to hobbies and interests. If a child of mine wants something financially out of our means, I won't hesitate to tell them no. This isn't fantasy land. You don't get everything handed to you.

[Littlebirdy]

BTW, you shouldn't be so snotty about hand-me-downs. Small children wear clothes for a very short period of time because of their rapid growth, and if one knows how to do laundry, clothes can look almost new after one child. We had all boys, so the younger two wore some hand-me-downs. They don't seem any worse for the wear (pun intended).

Exactly. My children are all aware that some of their clothing comes from the consignment sale. Big deal. We can't do hand-me-downs because of large age differences. I'm not going to hold onto my 10 year old son's clothing until my 9 month old son is old enough to wear it.

[Austin]

Exactly. My children are all aware that some of their clothing comes from the consignment sale. Big deal. We can't do hand-me-downs because of large age differences. I'm not going to hold onto my 10 year old son's clothing until my 9 month old son is old enough to wear it.

Oh, glad you explained that. I was kind of wondering what the difference was between hand-me-downs and consignment clothing, but that makes sense.

[loratliff]

If a child of mine wants something financially out of our means, I won't hesitate to tell them no. This isn't fantasy land. You don't get everything handed to you.

Of course you won't, but my point is simply that some of the things your children might want are financially impossible because of siblings. (I don't mean your children, specifically, but it collectively gets the point across.) And it's not about having a lot of money or giving your kids everything—it's about not being able to give your kids things BECAUSE you had more kids than you can afford.

Someone mentioned that they don't know anyone who made it through school solely on their parent's dime or without loans/financial aid. Only 40 percent of students at my undergrad (which was $40k per year) received financial aid of some kind. Education is one aspect where I would never, ever make my children take out loans or limit them in anyway and I do think having multiple kids can certainly do that.

Emmie, thank you for your explanation. I understand that everyone's situations can change. It sounds like you've done a really great job with your children.

[Austin]

The Duggars are not like most families. Much of what they do is based on trying to keep their children sheltered from the evil worldly ways. Most parents DO try to give their children access to hobbies and interests. If a child of mine wants something financially out of our means, I won't hesitate to tell them no. This isn't fantasy land. You don't get everything handed to you.

I would argue that learning to deal with some disappointment is good for kids. We can't all have everything we want when we want it. It's not good for kids to even think that they can (IMO). Even if money is no issue, I think it's fine to put reasonable limits on certain things. Having them figure out innovative ways to work to pursue an interest or a hobby is a skill they will need in real life if they are to be emotionally healthy adults. Giving a kid accesss to everything they want if they've put no skin in the game doesn't do them any favors.

[Littlebirdy]

Oh, glad you explained that. I was kind of wondering what the difference was between hand-me-downs and consignment clothing, but that makes sense.

:) I guess I view hand-me-downs as coming from a sibling. The consignment sales here only accept clothing that is in pristine condition. It has to be in style and cannot have any stains or rips. I often find many new with tag items. You can bet that I would do sibling hand-me-downs if my children were closer in ages and sizes.

[BlackHawk]

So I have a legitimate question that may ruffle some feathers: for all of you who want big families (e.g, 4+ kids), can you REALLY afford it? And I don't mean simply feeding and putting clothes on their backs. Can you afford to send them to college without six-figure loans? Can you afford for each kid to have a unique hobby that is enjoyable to them (whether it be art, music, football)? Do they get to spend time with adults (parent's friends, etc.) or are they always relegated to the kid's table with their siblings?

That has always been my deciding factor in having kids. My parents had only one child because they wanted to give me the world. I picked a very expensive hobby, much to their chagrin, that wouldn't have been possible for me to pursue with other kids in the picture. Not to mention that my cumulative years of schooling were well into the 6-figures.

I wouldn't want anything less for my children and wouldn't ever want them to feel limited as to what interests they can pursue or where they can get their education. Having multiples limits that severely in many, many instances so I wonder why people do it just for the sake of having a big family. Why not bless one child with the best of everything than have four kids wearing hand-me-downs and eating Velveeta? It's not like we don't already have an overpopulation problem.

(I was a very, very happy only, FWIW. So much so that I would like to just have one myself.)

Wow who knew all my kids will need will be money! I never new such a flighty thing could give them everything....

I don't have kids yet, but my partner and I have had this talk many times. He grew up being handed what he wanted... but he also rarely saw his dad... who was working so hard to be able to afford anything he and his sister wanted. I grew up poor.... very poor. I traded farm work for food at some points. I was also kicked out at 17, and had been working since I was 14. It's called life.

I plan to raise my children with that same understanding. No one is going to hand you a career or a life. Daddy and Papa aren't either. Yes, we will do everything we can to help, but it's not our job to make sure you have everything handed to you on a silver platter. My job is to make sure you understand what really matters in this world... and it's not money. Money can make you happy for a small amount of time, but it doesn't give you the love and attention you deserve. We make a comfortable living as of right now, and when I finish my degree we will make a more comfortable living. I have no doubts in my head that we can sustain a family of four while giving each child unique experiences within their life. I don't need a lot of money for that.

And no, we don't eat Velveeta. When you learn to cook from scratch, everything is cheaper. When you get to know your farmers, everything is cheaper. There are ways to make life not cost so much. It's not that difficult.

[emmiedahl]

My 4 younger kids wear hand-me-downs. They love them. It's really cool to have a sweatshirt that was worn by that older cousin you adore. It's also more eco-conscious; why would I throw away or donate a perfectly usable, attractive item and then buy another? It takes energy and resources to make clothing, not to mention issues like child labor. My kids wore hand-me-downs and thrift store clothes even when we could afford the mall stuff.

Velveeta is more expensive than actual cheese, why does it always get brought up as what the poor people eat?

[Austin]

Of course you won't, but my point is simply that some of the things your children might want are financially impossible because of siblings. (I don't mean your children, specifically, but it collectively gets the point across.) And it's not about having a lot of money or giving your kids everything—it's about not being able to give your kids things BECAUSE you had more kids than you can afford.

Someone mentioned that they don't know anyone who made it through school solely on their parent's dime or without loans/financial aid. Only 40 percent of students at my undergrad (which was $40k per year) received financial aid of some kind. Education is one aspect where I would never, ever make my children take out loans or limit them in anyway and I do think having multiple kids can certainly do that.

Emmie, thank you for your explanation. I understand that everyone's situations can change. It sounds like you've done a really great job with your children.

I did not say that I that I don't know anyone who made it through college without loans (actually, both my husband and I did), but I did say I don't know parents in our income bracket (and we are in the top quintile of earners in this country) who write $40k checks for college for multiple years, even for one child. Most people take advantage of financial aids packages that colleges offer, such as scholarships, grants, and yes, even loans.

And I would avoid saying "never, ever" about much of anything having to do with raising kids before you've even had one.

[clibbyjo]

Of course you won't, but my point is simply that some of the things your children might want are financially impossible because of siblings. (I don't mean your children, specifically, but it collectively gets the point across.) And it's not about having a lot of money or giving your kids everything—it's about not being able to give your kids things BECAUSE you had more kids than you can afford.

Someone mentioned that they don't know anyone who made it through school solely on their parent's dime or without loans/financial aid. Only 40 percent of students at my undergrad (which was $40k per year) received financial aid of some kind. Education is one aspect where I would never, ever make my children take out loans or limit them in anyway and I do think having multiple kids can certainly do that.

Emmie, thank you for your explanation. I understand that everyone's situations can change. It sounds like you've done a really great job with your children.

You have no kids yet right? :lol: My son is looking at Brown which is currently 56K a year. I hope you have a great job because your are going to need 1/2 a million dollars to put your one child through college and that is just undergrad. Hope your one child doesn't chose medical school on top. Good luck with that. :lol:

[Littlebirdy]

Someone mentioned that they don't know anyone who made it through school solely on their parent's dime or without loans/financial aid. Only 40 percent of students at my undergrad (which was $40k per year) received financial aid of some kind. Education is one aspect where I would never, ever make my children take out loans or limit them in anyway and I do think having multiple kids can certainly do that.

You went to a 40k per year undergrad school. That's expensive.Chances are that many people that attended came from wealthy families.

This all comes down to a matter of opinion and priorities. You have every right to have one child and pay off their education in full. For us that is not the number one priority.

[treemom]

Repeat after me: when something is what you would choose based on your experiences and desires it is personal preference not objective fact. Only want one kid because of what you want to provide? Have at it. Imply that somehow a family of greater than 2.5 is doing a disservice simply because of the number of kids they have and finances, not based on anything evidentiary? Well that sucks.

Personal preference is ok. Embrace it!

[Austin]

Repeat after me: when something is what you would choose based on your experiences and desires it is personal preference not objective fact. Only want one kid because of what you want to provide? Have at it. Imply that somehow a family of greater than 2.5 is doing a disservice simply because of the number of kids they have and finances, not based on anything evidentiary? Well that sucks.

Personal preference is ok. Embrace it!

:clap:

[emmiedahl]

Money is important, but the thing that bothers me about QF families is that they don't give a flying fuck about their kids as little people. That attitude would be there if there was 1, 5, or 20 children in the house. That would happen if they were millionaires. They don't give a damn about the well-being of every little person; they are playing a numbers game.

Finances change, circumstances change, children's needs change, and you cannot say for certain that you will always be able to give your children the best. But you need to have that core love and appreciation for your children as individuals. It may not pay for summer camp, but it is the biggest gift you can bestow on them.

[loratliff]

Repeat after me: when something is what you would choose based on your experiences and desires it is personal preference not objective fact. Only want one kid because of what you want to provide? Have at it. Imply that somehow a family of greater than 2.5 is doing a disservice simply because of the number of kids they have and finances, not based on anything evidentiary? Well that sucks.

Personal preference is ok. Embrace it!

This is just a discussion, based on an honest question. Isn't that what we do here—discuss things? I don't care what anyone else does; I was simply curious and obviously I can do nothing to limit the number of kids someone has, nor do I want to.

[treemom]

This is just a discussion, based on an honest question. Isn't that what we do here—discuss things? I don't care what anyone else does; I was simply curious and obviously I can do nothing to limit the number of kids someone has, nor do I want to.

Oh, I think the judgement in your post was thinly veiled. Good parents would never have more than 3 kids unless they meet your definition of what being able to afford kids means,

[loratliff]

You have no kids yet right? :lol: My son is looking at Brown which is currently 56K a year. I hope you have a great job because your are going to need 1/2 a million dollars to put your one child through college and that is just undergrad. Hope your one child doesn't chose medical school on top. Good luck with that. :lol:

Where are you getting $500,000 for four years at $56k? You mean 1/4 of a million? Regardless, my family put me through four years of school at $40k plus grad school in the most expensive city in the country and they aren't millionaires, believe it or not. It's about priorities.

[loratliff]

Oh, I think the judgement in your post was thinly veiled. Good parents would never have more than 3 kids unless they meet your definition of what being able to afford kids means,

That would be your opinion. I was just asking if those who want large families seriously consider finances and the impact that it might have on their other children. Obviously, I've learned that they do and that most parents, like EmmieDahl, still find a way to make sure that their children are fulfilled, finances-aside.

[treemom]

That would be your opinion. I was just asking if those who want large families seriously consider finances and the impact that it might have on their other children. Obviously, I've learned that they do and that most parents, like EmmieDahl, still find a way to make sure that their children are fulfilled, finances-aside.

I never denied it was my opinion...hence the words I think. But, you are right, the way you are framing this shows no sense of judging whatsoever. Priorities and all that.

[clibbyjo]

Oh, I think the judgement in your post was thinly veiled. Good parents would never have more than 3 kids unless they meet your definition of what being able to afford kids means,

Yay, I am a good parent because I have 3 kids and one plays very expensive hockey and I pay for it!! I win! But wait........ I am not paying for college, so I am a bad parent. Damn, I should not have had those 2 extra kids, what was I thinking?

p.s.I factored in the price of expensive colleges raising their prices within the next 18 years. Since you don't even have your one child yet, the price you pay in a minimum of 19 years(since you didn;t say you are currently pregnant either) is going to be much more. Its ok though, you can afford it.

p.p.s. My husband went to grad school for free. Actually, he worked and they paid him.

[MyNameIsJonas]

You have no kids yet right? :lol: My son is looking at Brown which is currently 56K a year. I hope you have a great job because your are going to need 1/2 a million dollars to put your one child through college and that is just undergrad. Hope your one child doesn't chose medical school on top. Good luck with that. :lol:

I always heard (and was told at college visits) that Ivy Leagues have large school endowments and donations and if you were smart enough to be there, they would help take care of you.

[VintageJen1984]

Because I read that as using vintage's words against her...in the both ways can have shitty outcomes way. I am not sure itsaclowncar would have used that phrase if it had not been used by vintage,

Also, I admit, having an only means I am more likely to see offense when people make critical statements about it. It is a pretty normal human reaction. But, no, I think I was clear, nothing is guaranteed in life and I don't think sweeping generalizations on the status of siblings or not having them is a good practice.

One thing I'd like to say, I never said I wanted to make choices for other people, just that I'd never wish it on anyone. To me there is a big difference. I'd also never wish growing up with all the money in the world and trust fund with five billion dollars in it that you get when you turn 21 on anyone, because I think that really separates you from what reality is for the large majority of people, but if I were in the position to make that life happen for my child, I can't say I wouldn't do it, it would be incredibly tempting. I understand that other people want different things and no I don't think "I'd never wish it on someone" is the same thing as actually trying to decide that for other people.

FWIW, I had some really amazing experiences as an only child, and I have a fantastic imagination and love to do things alone where most people wont. (I have met countless people who say they wont eat lunch in public alone, they'd rather sit in their car. And forget about going out for dinner at a nice place alone! Which I LOVE!) I also don't see my relationship with my sister, while great, as all sunshine and rainbows. I have seen enough sibling drama between my parents and their siblings to last more than one lifetime, and it crosses the generation barrier and causes me great pain. So I know people have shitty relationships with their siblings, to the point that it has a direct and painful effect on me. And I know there are onlies who love it. It's not just me going "oh I hated being an only and my sister is fantastic!" that's forming my opinion. I'd still rather have my sister even if I hated her, than not. At the very least, and Lord willing we both survive our parents, she can help me make end-of-life care decisions. I suck at simple things like "what do I wear today" or "what should I eat", the idea that I will have to decide what kind of care my father needs alone, and probably plan his post-mortem proceedings alone, is very terrifying to me. At least with my mom and stepdad my sister will be there to help. In fact, that is one of the main things I dislike about being an only child, is the responsibility to one's parents in their elder years.

[snarkbillie]

I always heard (and was told at college visits) that Ivy Leagues have large school endowments and donations and if you were smart enough to be there, they would help take care of you.

It's pretty evident that what you were told is untrue. All people at an Ivy League have demonstrated they're "smart enough" to be there and yet most pay tuition. If they are not "smart enough" to be there, why were they admitted? While most Ivy League universities are "needs blind" meaning they will accept you no matter what your financial situation as long as you qualify, their criteria for doling out grands and endowments are quite strict and you'd have to be in very very very dire financial straits to qualify. JME, YMMV.

[emmiedahl]

Many Ivy Leagues have very generous programs for the middle class. For instance, more than five years ago, Harvard announced that families making less than $60K would pay nothing for tuition. Princeton already had a similar program and has for more than a decade. Yale and MIT have since followed suit.

One of the many articles on the topic: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massac ... n_barrier/