Post by simpsongal on Aug 20, 2014 15:16:04 GMT -5
In the spirit of all the family size posts..... It seems like smaller families are becoming the norm. I recall most of my friends had 2 siblings growing up. But it seems like families of four or even three are the default today.
Why do to think that is? The cost of daycare and whatnot? Higher standard of living and activities, expectations for our kids? Were our families growing up just poorer or worse with money? More working moms? Pressure on the middle class? Other
Discuss
I admit, I was a little sad to see the number of posters say they were done with two because of financial reasons (Dh and I may be in that position as well)
All of the above, plus the average age of FTMs is inching up. I'm 34, so I'm guilty of contributing to that statistic.
Weirdly, family size seems to grow by the generation in my immediate family. Both of my parents are only children, they had 2 kids, and I'm open to the idea of 3 (we will see...one at a time).
I definitely think the rising cost of just shit in general versus pathetic salary increases. I can't afford to SAH forever, and even though I earned a pretty decent salary, we couldn't afford to keep three or more kids in child care or after school care.
Starting later for sure - my parents were "old" among my friends because my mom was 28 and my dad was 36 when they had me. Now, most of my friends were just getting around to getting married at 28, 30, or later. Sure, you can have healthy pregnancies in your 30s, but AMA is real, and most of us are reluctant to keep having babies after our mid-30s. Not to mention, I'd like to retire without any offspring still on the payroll.
I think is a fairly complex issue and not unique to the us. In the use the fertility rate rises in and falls (you can see dips in the 1930's and 1970's which were also tough times economically.
"Hello babies. Welcome to Earth. It's hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It's round and wet and crowded. On the outside, babies, you've got a hundred years here. There's only one rule that I know of, babies-"God damn it, you've got to be kind.”
Post by autumnfire on Aug 20, 2014 15:40:02 GMT -5
If we even have a second that'll be it for us. Personally speaking our family of 3 feels complete and if we have another we'll definitely be done then. I find our life style and the items we own accommodate a family of 3 or 4. Our SUV can handle 2 car seats comfortably, our home 2 extra bedrooms and a computer room. For us 1 or 2 kids just feels right. We are lucky in that daycare if we have another will only be $200/week. So it's allowed us to truly evaluate if #2 will be right for our family instead of worrying about the financial aspects making us choose between one of us being a SAHP or work. I'm extremely grateful for that.
But at this stage we're not sure if we're OAD or TAD.
Spin off topic, will maternity leave and other programs for families gain traction in the US because of the declining birthrate?
I think our birthrate is still above replacement and one of the highest in the Western world. I will try to find an article.
I don't think so. I think the birth rate is below replacement (~1.9 vs. ~2.3 for replacement)but we have a lot of immigration to make up for that fact.
Spin off topic, will maternity leave and other programs for families gain traction in the US because of the declining birthrate?
I think our birthrate is still above replacement and one of the highest in the Western world. I will try to find an article.
. I've read that as well & totally believe it (edit: maybe that did count immigration) I have lots & lots of friends with 3-9 kids...but they are almost all SAHM (or work part time), Catholic & far above middle class income (don't know numbers, just baed on house, lifestyle). I grew up in rural IL in the 1980s & we were FREAKS of nature having 5 kids in our family. 4 was also rare. 2-3 was the absolute norm.
I have no idea if this link will work, but it's very cool: (it didn't - but google "united states birth rate" and play with the WHO data that comes up as the first link)
It appears that Canada has a significantly lower birth rate than the USA, but it's pretty much the same as the early 80's when I was born.
Post by DarcyLongfellow on Aug 20, 2014 16:18:10 GMT -5
It's the opposite in my area. I was talking to a friend the other day, and she days she's heard the phrase, "three is the new two."
Growing up, it seemed like almost all families had 2 kids. Families with 3 were rare, 4 or more very rare. Now I feel like almost everyone I know is having 3 kids.
Post by Velar Fricative on Aug 20, 2014 16:23:51 GMT -5
I think all of the above is correct plus we want more than what our parents and grandparents had. For the most part, they raised more kids in smaller homes, with fewer cars, pay for education that was less expensive, etc. In order to do "better," we need to have fewer kids due to incomes that have not been rising as quickly as costs have been rising.
But I will also say that this is the case for the very wide range of middle-income in this country. If you're poor or if you're rich, you might have more kids.
Post by pinkdutchtulips on Aug 20, 2014 17:05:10 GMT -5
I think a lot depends on where you live, col, education level, career path, family support, lifestyle choices.
I'm fairly certain that my brother being in the OAD camp in WY is very different than me being in the OAD camp in SF, CA.
I'm one of 4 and there are NO plans for any of my siblings to have 4 kids. we all started late (post 30, closer to 35 to start having kids) and growing up poor and not getting to experience a lot of things that other kids got to definitely steered us to the smaller family camp. also having to pay for housing (something my parents didn't have to do until i was 16!) put a damper on how many kids to have.
My mom was one of 10 and h's dad was one of 5. It was a different time for sure. I come from a huge catholic family, community, etc. so most people my mom's age were from huge families. I know a pretty good mix of family size within my friends now, but again we live in smaller rural communities that seem to have larger family sizes than in larger cities.
Post by lizlemon19 on Aug 20, 2014 20:37:52 GMT -5
A lot of good answers here. I don't think anyone brought up religion being less common of a decision in family planning.
I think 2 working parents and finances are probably the biggest factors, as is lifestyle changes. I feel like people now have bigger houses, feel kids needs their own room,want their child in more activities, etc.
We are very seriously considering being OAD for financial reasons. We can't afford two in daycare and don't have family around to help. I don't want my kids to be 5 years apart. Also, college is absurdly expensive and we'd really like to afford our child the opportunity to graduate with minimal debt.
I knew plenty of families with only 2 kids in the 80s. Many of my friends had one younger sibling who my sister's age (3 year spacing).
Ditto here, but I've noticed so many families now have kids with only two years in between. I associate this with an older average first time parent, and still trying to avoid AMA.
I know lots of people with two kids and lots of people with three kids. I know more people with four kids than I do people with one kid (and, unfortunately, the majority of our friends who only have one wanted more but were faced with infertility). Overall, I would say the family size I observe now is similar to what I saw growing up, with maybe a few more three kid families versus two kid families.
Interestingly, in my own life I don't really see the expected correlation between education and career aspirations and smaller family size. Three kid families are really common among my law school classmates, and my closest girlfriends include is a big law partner with four kids, a PhD biochemist with three kids, an MD with three kids, etc.