How is it possible to have a big family in 2010?

[OptomisticGirl]

hahahaha. i just read that. nice one OptomisticGirl... only be careful, there might be a reason people don't prosper there... lol

 

atleast we all still retain our humor

 

I'm moving to England to be with my fiance, the reason they can't over populate is becuase they are an island. My God they are running out of room to bury people, let alone breed large families! So I think us and our 4 kids will be the abnormal. Like lostnscared said, only a few people are having more than 2 kids because of the eceonmy.

[JohnTheMan]

those stats are as of 2009.... maybe you saw something i didn't. the line is linear. the popullation continues to grow in a linear form, a positive slope. it will be interesting to see the graph in 10-15 yrs and see if the baby boomers indeed reduce the rise... however, that still means the popullation is on the rise... do the math.

[JohnTheMan]

here is an interesting article: link removed

 

there are many on the sustainable population of earth

[lostnscared]

here is an interesting article: link removed

 

there are many on the sustainable population of earth

 

Again 3 or 4 kids will not hurt the population. If we were saying we wanted 5 or 6 children--I could see your point. But 3 children or even 4 isn't a significantly large amount. I didn't read the article--but I just want to point out that many of us aren't making the decision to have a huge number of children. I've even indicated that most likely I would have one child and see how that goes, before making a decision to have several others. I can see myself adopting ONE child, but like OG if I were to do that I'd want to adopt a baby not a child and that would be expensive. And adopting a child is often more difficult than raising your own biological child. You don't have all the information on that child's parents, so there could be mental issues, physical issues, etc that you would not know how to treat. When the child gets older I'm sure the child himself/herself will have questions about their parents, and so on. It isn't as though you just go to an agency and "pick" a child, it's a lengthy, expensive, emotional process. And it isn't for everyone. I can imagine that of course if we all made the decision to have 4 or more children that the population would be in a dire state, but that is not the case.

[petite]

I think you should have not included the link to her blog, since you're basically giving your opinion about her. Perhaps asking the admin/mods to delete the link to her blog would be wise, since it isn't really necessary on this thread.

[Sky-Cherries]

I think parents are forgetting what children need to grow up versus what they want to grow up.

 

I come from a family of 13 children, only one parent working. We didn't have cable tv, because it wasn't a need. We didn't eat out at takeaway unless it was our birthday, because it wasn't needed. We didn't eat junk food, because it wasn't needed. We didn't each have a billion toys, because it wasn't needed.

 

We each ate three meals a day of healthy food, vegetable grown by us in our garden, each child had a different vegetable they were responsible for.

We lived in a 7 bedroom home, you only got your own bedroom once you turned 13, or you were differing sexes.

We went on one holiday a year, a road trip to the holiday park an hour out of town. We all looked forward to it, it was great!

We wore hand me downs, yes, but they weren't noticeably old, they weren't tatty. Our mother was a seamstress and she hand-made most of our clothing.

 

My husband's goal is to a CFO or CEO of a company. With the way he's going in his University, he's been on a 99% average for the past 5 years, he'll get there within the next 10 years, perhaps less.

That means, happily, I won't have to be one of those working mothers and we can afford a large family.

 

I still won't buy un-necessary things for my kids. We'll have a vege garden. We'll have chickens in the backyard. We won't have cable. We won't eat out twice a week. We won't eat junk food. And we won't have a billion toys or designer clothes for every child.

 

Having a large family is very possible.

Having a large family with today's views of everything has to be expensive and new is not possible.

[petite]

Family life is expensive, especially for those who can't afford the children they have. While I understand overpopulation is a problem already, the US is not responsible to lead other countries, especially when many countries don't even want anything to do with the Western world, let alone worrying about population control.

 

I was in India last month volunteering at orphanages, we even rescued a little girl who was left on the side of the road, and my heart broke. I would love to help other children as much as I can and provide them with necessities which all children need.

Having said that, I also want a child of my own, and not just because I want a child; but because I want to experience pregnancy, motherhood, and have that special bond with my partner. Of course we can adopt the children, and I am certain I would love them, and at that point biology would not matter. However, looking at it now I want to try and have my own children. I know I wouldn't have more than three and I definitely can afford to support the children I want without any financial help from anyone, least of all the government.

 

I think we need to concentrate more on education regarding birth control, especially when it comes to teenage mothers and those in low-income housing communities.

I want to help as much as I can, and I'd love to give many babies a home, but it isn't my sole responsibility to adopt children rather than having my own -- just because some teenager decided she wanted to do it in the backseat.

 

There is a limit to how much am willing to help and give, and there are things I also want in life. I'd love to have my own biological children. There are times when we become selfish, and when it comes to children, I am selfish. I work hard, I vote, I pay my taxes, I donate a lot of my time and money to those who need it, but there are things I also want and everything can't be about giving to others, while neglecting what I would also like; and before anyone I and my family would be number one.

 

Everyone has different opinions regarding raising children and what they want/need. I personally would not have more than one child If I couldn't afford to put the children through school and offer them a comfortable life.

 

Makes one think; seems like everyone on this thread is childless and all the opinions are just empty discussion now and opinions. Until we actually have children.

[lostnscared]

My boyfriend grew up in a similar way(but had cable and decent clothing). He was fine as kid, but did wish he could do certain things that he wasn't able to do, due to finances. His parents made decent money but when you allocate for a family of 8, they often struggled.

 

What is wrong with a working mother?

 

And I agree with your last sentence--I suspect that a lot of people believe that having a bigger family is expensive, because these same said people believe in a certain lifestyle that may entail "more than" what is needed for the child (ipods, vacations, designer clothes, mcmansions, expensive cars, etc).

[lostnscared]

Agreed with the bolded.

 

This thread was not intended to morph into what it has morphed in to. I had wanted to hear from people who had bigger families(more than 3 children) and find out the reasons why, as well as how it was financially and if it was chaotic. A few people followed the topic, others created a debate about overpopulation, replacement rates, welfare families, and adoption.

[PhilliesFan001]

I would say overpopulation is a world problem. Even if the US isn't overpopulated, we still need to think outside our one insular little country and realize the enormous effect we have on the world.

[lostnscared]

Overpopulation is a problem. Agreed. But for the sake of this thread, I don't really feel like that topic is relevant any further. Few families have more than 3 children, and even when they do it's rarely over 5. I would like for this thread to stay on topic and not delve into things that I feel really aren't a concern to many people who obviously have more than 3 children. I'm interested in hearing from people growing up in big families, people considering having bigger families, and/or people who've had bigger families-what their reasons were for having big families, if it was difficult, and how they were viewed by others. Let's try NOT to talk about things that are outside of that.

[ut804]

I don't know how it's possible either. It's so expensive, especially where I live. In my neighborhood, a SMALL tiny 2 bedroom attached house next to factories is $500,000. A SMALL 2 bedroom apartment is at least $1,200 a month rent.

Then, there's this crappy economy. I have BA and MA degrees and still don't have a decent job.

Then, the cost of living for everything else goes up. Food prices increase, taxes increase, transportation, gas, everything.

 

how the heck is it possible for even 1 person to survive?

 

and the thing that makes me sad/angry is people on welfare who keep popping out kids and not working.

[newwave]

My boyfriend grew up in a similar way(but had cable and decent clothing). He was fine as kid, but did wish he could do certain things that he wasn't able to do, due to finances. His parents made decent money but when you allocate for a family of 8, they often struggled.

 

What is wrong with a working mother?

 

And I agree with your last sentence--I suspect that a lot of people believe that having a bigger family is expensive, because these same said people believe in a certain lifestyle that may entail "more than" what is needed for the child (ipods, vacations, designer clothes, mcmansions, expensive cars, etc).

 

I'm sad that working mothers are so stigmatized and that there's this idea that working mothers are "selfish" by working. I don't think there's anything wrong with both parents working, which is what I would do because I love working. Likewise there's nothing wrong with only one parents working if it's by choice.

 

Getting off that though, I think using Mcmansions, iPods, etc for not having a large family is stupid. My family feels that big items should be bought on one's own. When I got my last job my first big purchase was a new car, my first ever new car. My second purchase was an iPod. I would do the same to my kids and make them work for what they want. When you have to work for it you appreciate it more.

[newwave]

I don't know how it's possible either. It's so expensive, especially where I live. In my neighborhood, a SMALL tiny 2 bedroom attached house next to factories is $500,000. A SMALL 2 bedroom apartment is at least $1,200 a month rent.

Then, there's this crappy economy. I have BA and MA degrees and still don't have a decent job.

Then, the cost of living for everything else goes up. Food prices increase, taxes increase, transportation, gas, everything.

 

how the heck is it possible for even 1 person to survive?

 

and the thing that makes me sad/angry is people on welfare who keep popping out kids and not working.

 

Agree with you. Where I live it's expensive to live and the salaries are low. I too have a BA and a MA and can't find a decent fulltime job with benefits. I don't expect to ever own a house. I too am livid when welfare people keep popping out kids. I've seen that a lot and it disgusts me.

[itsallgrand]

lostnscared,

 

A lot of families that I personally have come in contact with, who are large families with many children, the vast majority of them hinge on a religious roots.

 

It is usually either that as the basis - a religious conviction with some key ideas that propel a certain worldview, or it seems to me to be families where there is a lot of dysfunction and the idea of family planning is not even a thought that was entered until after several of the children were born. I am talking dysfunction of the type: abuse, alcohol and substance abuse, chronic poverty and identity disruption (either or both: culturally and personally).

 

Of course not all large families have these things. But they are general trends, I, personally, have noticed in my life and in my work.

 

In some cultures where there was serious disruption to the flow, it is especially pronounced. I think in a way, sometimes breeding a lot is a way some people prove THEY EXIST to themselves and to in a way, to others.

 

I even think, and this may sound a bit unrealistic but I think there is some truth to it in certain circumstances, that sometimes it is almost purely POLITICAL. Either from within or without; political forces are at the root of some communities where large families are the norm rather than the minority.

[itsallgrand]

oh, p.s. I come from a very large extended family. lol.

[bulletproof]

My guess is that it's completely possible to have a big family in 2010 if you are not sucked in by the world telling you what you "need". Most people can breast-feed until a child gets teeth, use cloth diapers, and change a baby on the living room floor, but instead you see people spending money on formula, disposable diapers and a roomful of baby furniture. We have been so conditioned to think we need things that we've lost our heads. The house I bought is a tiny two-bedroom, and the family that owned it before me had three kids. That's five people living in this little house. But they made it work somehow. I myself make very little money and manage quite well in my life. I know where to get things cheap and for free, and I've made sure that my hobbies are inexpensive. Regarding tuition... kids can learn early on to study hard for scholarships, and if not they can go to college part-time and work. They will likely get way more from the experience that way.

[petite]

Most of what you say in your last post bulletproof is true, but some people can't breast feed and others might not want to. The mother would also need to be on a good nutritional diet in order to breast-feed. It isn't all that simple, not with kids anyway. While cloth diapers are probably cheaper (I'm not a mother and haven't used them, but from what I am told of those who have they hated it) you have to take into consideration, the time, water and electricity that will be used to wash those cloth diapers, and dry.

 

I want children and it's not just because I want a child, but for many other reasons, but I wouldn't have more than I can afford. It's one thing to be selfish and want a biological child because of a-b-c reason, but it is another to want a child simply because one wants it, but can't actually afford to give them a decent living. Love is great, but not always enough.

I wouldn't want to spoil my child rotten to the point where they have no appreciation for money or the finer things in life, but I also wouldn't want them to struggle and look at their school friends and think "wow, why can't I have a different sandwich today like my friend does?"

 

And what if the child would like to attend the top Ivy League University? Scholarships to such schools are numbered, and the competition is fierce. For instance Harvard Law does not award “merit” or “full-ride” scholarships. What if the child wanted to attend Harvard Law? Does the parent simply say, "Well sorry dear, mommy and daddy had you because we wanted to, with no nest egg, so therefore you have to go to a different school which wont cost as much"? Sure the child can apply for financial aid, but the debt they would endure after they graduate is extremely high, so not many people would even consider it and maybe not even granted even if they wanted it.

 

Example: HLS for the 2005-2006 year was $35,100. In addition, the costs of dormitory housing, food, medical fees, books and supplies, activity fee, and personal and travel expenses for a single student come to at least $21,456, for a total of at least $56,556.

We need more educated people, and less of those that want to slide through the world. I am not saying people shouldn't have children, because I wouldn't be happy with someone telling me I shouldn't, but we need to think about what we can offer those children.

I have nothing against housewives or stay at home dads, absolutely nothing, because I realize their work is very hard and they don't just sit at home and do nothing (not all anyway). If one wants to be at home and take care of their children, great more power to them, but if the same person doesn't have an education which they can fall back on if their partner looses a job, that's a whole other ballgame. It's okay to work at Mc Donalds (or equivalent) when you're in you're early 20's, but if wont pay the bills and feed your child at 35-40.

 

One thing I will say, if a person can hardly afford themselves, those same people need to re-think having children, or at least get a better education, some work experience and then start having bucket loads of babies.

 

At the end, we all have or own standards of living, and regardless what others say usually people end up doing what they want anyway.

[bulletproof]

That's why I said "most" people are able to breast-feed. I'm aware that not everyone can. Not wanting to is another whole issue- it's hard to cry poverty when you have a source of food that's free. Yes, cloth diapers are more work, but this post was about what we think are necessities versus what really are. The examples you give of ivy league schools are likely the exception rather than the rule, but again, I would help out as much as I could if I had a child accepted to any school. My point was that if people didn't think they needed all the stuff this country shoves down their throats (brand new cars, multiple televisions, cable, gourmet coffee, etc.) then they would probably have a nest egg to begin with.

[BriarRose]

People should be able to have as many kids as they can afford to care for. And I don't mean college costs. I mean food, health care, shelter, etc.

[OptomisticGirl]

People should be able to have as many kids as they can afford to care for. And I don't mean college costs. I mean food, health care, shelter, etc.

 

Exactly. Because the average joe who works isn't ever going to have enough to completely, 100% put their kid through college. Let's be fair, over half the kids I know and went to the HS with, are only in college because of fiancial aide. I don't mean student loans where you pay it back, I mean like the pell grant or the state's lottery money. I only knew of a handful of kids when I was in college that their parents paid their entire way. So while it's a good goal to want a career underneath your belt to 'one day afford college', if you want kids (and a lot of them) it could end not even happening that way with the way pricing for school is.

[lostnscared]

I've said this on other threads, but my sister went to Harvard for undergrad, my dad paid for it all-my sister only took out a measly 10,000 student loan, the rest my dad is paying for. But at the time my dad had my sister, he was making 27,000 with a broken down hoopty car, my mom was a SAHM with 4 children, and my dad and mom had us in their early-mid twenties. For 11 years, my mom shopped at Goodwill for clothing, we did get some assistance(but not much), and we shopped at stores like Aldi, we never went on vacations, we never did things that "other kids" got to do. I wasn't harmed emotionally, and had plenty to eat as a kid and had a fun childhood. By the time I was 12, my dad had came on top of things and worked his way up, we went from being very working class to be upper middle class, to being upper class by the time I was 18 and off to college. When my parents had us they had no "savings", no "emergency fund", no "college tuition money"--all they had were the basics: food, shelter, water, and small fund of money for us to do various "smaller inexpensive activities: dance, football, etc. And honestly for a lot of my friends I went to undergrad with, it was a similar sentiment. While these kids were not as poor as I was growing up, they remember "times" when they were crammed in a 2 bedroom apartment with 3 children, and where neither parent made enough to even put money aside for schooling. Later on that same parent came up with the funds to pay. My point is that while it's nice and probably necessary to have money upfront for various things, unexpected emergencies, and Ivy League colleges(which as bullet proof said--very exceptional), most people do not and don't find it as necessary, as long as they cover the basics. All else--education, entertainment, etc will be left up to that family to decide how to allocate funds.

I hate to say it but this new mindset that you must be able to pay for college, do this and do that, is very much a Gen X sort of thing(that begin with them) and is slowly starting to reflect on a few gen-y individuals. But before this mindset existed, most people didn't feel that having funds aside for the things you mentioned was necessary starting out. I believe a college education is crucial, but I don't necessarily think that it should be a "criteria" that one be able to afford to pay 100% of their student education if they have a child.

One thing I do agree with is that having a child is "more than" just wanting one. You shouldn't just have a child because you want one, rather you should have a child because you are able to give the child what it NEEDS, because you are able to "afford" a child, because you can love and nurture the child in a way that is selfless, and you are able to take care of yourself as an independent adult without completely relying on others. This much I agree with. And in terms of a child feeling left out--well I hate to be cold but sometimes a child needs to be left out because sometimes what other kids have is just so completely unnecessary. I know kids(5 and 6 year olds) who have cell phones, who have ipods, entertainment systems in their rooms, designer clothes--if my child felt "left out" based on those very materialistic "tangible" items then I would have to say "oh well". Even if it was sandwhich that would have to be another "oh well". Some things a child will just have to chalk up to "if you want it, you work for it". Other things, that are more intangible, that other kids get to have and do--well in those cases then I can honestly say that YES having the emotional maturity and financial maturity to afford those sort of things is crucial. Others are not. In this world, where many people are valuing things that are very "surface" (again ipods, mcmansions, expensive luxury cars, etc) trying to keep the kids up with the rest of the "jones" is not necessary.

In terms of cloth versus regular diapers, and breast-feeding versus formula--those are just ways to cut corners if one CAN. I think Bulletproof was just pointing out that having a child does not have to be as expensive as many people make it out to be. There are thousands of ways to cut corners financially--and none of which physically or emotionally harm a child. If a person KNOWING the costs of certain things, opts to do them anyway and does not want to cut corners that is fine. But there are many people who do. I always read that statistic about the average cost of a kid per year, and honestly NO ONE that I know of spent the much on their child in one year or let alone spent the $250,000 over that 18 year period. Most people(again this may be cultural) that I know of spent significantly below that amount, just by doing "cost-saving" things and allocating their funds in appropriate ways that worked for them. That is probably why I don't necessarily pay as much attention to the stat and to the "supposed" cost of having a child.

[Cognitive_Canine]

Exactly. Because the average joe who works isn't ever going to have enough to completely, 100% put their kid through college. Let's be fair, over half the kids I know and went to the HS with, are only in college because of fiancial aide. I don't mean student loans where you pay it back, I mean like the pell grant or the state's lottery money. I only knew of a handful of kids when I was in college that their parents paid their entire way. So while it's a good goal to want a career underneath your belt to 'one day afford college', if you want kids (and a lot of them) it could end not even happening that way with the way pricing for school is.

 

It's just a real tragedy when you have a brilliant kid who gets into a dream college and can't afford it. I don't know of many kids who aren't drowning in loans upon graduation either. Even the extremely gifted have a hard time getting scholarships. I got a full ride to an engineer school but nothing from my other three colleges. I've also had a lot of friends from one parent families who couldn't get any loans or grants because the parent who wasn't contributing anything towards their college was counted in the FAFSA sheet and they made "too much money".

 

It's not the parent's fault though, by no means. College is just so unbelievably expensive in the states.

 

I also think that people who are a drain on our economy will be a drain on our economy no matter the amount of children they have. I know families of 8 who manage to pay the bills on time every time, and I know families of 4 with grown children and no physical ailments who work as minimal amounts as possible and get everything they can from the government.

[lostnscared]

Exactly. Because the average joe who works isn't ever going to have enough to completely, 100% put their kid through college. Let's be fair, over half the kids I know and went to the HS with, are only in college because of fiancial aide. I don't mean student loans where you pay it back, I mean like the pell grant or the state's lottery money. I only knew of a handful of kids when I was in college that their parents paid their entire way. So while it's a good goal to want a career underneath your belt to 'one day afford college', if you want kids (and a lot of them) it could end not even happening that way with the way pricing for school is.

 

I said this before, but prior to generation X and our generation, paying for a college education was not a criteria needed to have a child. This is something "new" that recently has come into play and just isn't practical or doable for every family. I do believe that a part of the reason that this is becoming a criteria is because the value of having an education and the advantage it gives us thesedays is so crucial that many believe that is necessary that a parent shoulders their burden for their child because tuition is so expensive that it can drag a child-without parental assistance--down. I agree with this, but also feel as though, again this is something that a family must "decide" upon. If a child wanted to go to Harvard but a parent could not afford it, I'm sure that same "said" child got plenty of full-ride others places, if they had the grades to get into Harvard. My sister got SEVERAL full-ride scholarships, before she said "yes" to Harvard. She made a conscious choice to go to the school, knowing that she would have to take out a loan. She didn't even like Harvard in the end, and was so glad to get out of Boston she was running for the exit. Of course it did give her numerous advantages(she got to meet a TON of top political people) but on the same hand, she was already super intelligent before going to the school(she got a 35 on her ACT) and we've all agreed that even if she didn't go to the school she would have done well in life because of her hardwork and book smarts.

That is beyond the point though--there are plenty of ways to allocate the costs of college. I've created a post about what I would do, and in my case, I would have the child shoulder a small part of their loan, because I don't believe it will kill them.

[lostnscared]

Exactly. I have a friend that is an absolute drain. Everything she gets--she finds a way to get government assistance. Just yesterday she was telling me that if she gets rental assistance she is going to quit her 10 hour a week job, and just not work. This is the same said person, who lied and got $3000 from fema and bought 3 screen tvs, a couch set, plenty of tables, etc. The same said person who took a large portion of loans and went on a shopping spree. The same said person that got a cell phone from the govt. Gets 600 dollars a month in food from the gov't and has 3 kids and wants one more. Believe me THOSE sort of people--even if they had 1 or 4 children--are going to be a drain.

The individuals, like the woman I was describing in the first post, are not "draining" the system. They are working, and managing their bills.

As for college education--I agree that parents should "shoulder" MOST of their child's education. But I think paying for their ENTIRE education no matter where they go, can put a parent in as much of a financial hole(not having the money to retire or to do things for themselves in the future) as it would making the child pay their entire education. As I've said before, I've read in numerous financial magazines, that no matter what a parent should NEVER pay the entire cost of their child's education. Unless they have less than 2 children, and can afford to do so without taking a "hit". My sister went to Harvard, my other sister goes to Northwestern--my parents will not be retiring anytime soon.