3rd kid - Finances - AIBU?

[Bubblesintheair88]

Many times I read in threads that the valid reason for not having a 3rd kid is finances.

Please don't get me wrong but I don't fully get it.

I mean uni fees is of course something to consider, nursery fees too. But if you space your kids 3-4 years apart then these issue is not an issue anymore? In my mind, if kids are spaced apart wisely then it doesn't make any difference if you have 1, 2, 3 or more kids in terms of nursery fees and uni fees, no?

Also, I read sometimes that hotel rooms are expensive. But people can rent airbnb etc. so this issue is not an issue anymore?

I also read that there are no family tickets for 5 usually. I get this point but 1. how often do you go to such places? and 2. is this a valid reason for not having one more child?

In terms of finances the only real one to me is to give a house deposit to each kid as this doesn't change no matter how wisely you space your kids apart.

Any thoughts on this?

YABU - You haven't thought it right
YANBU - You are right

People think in terms of how many babies they want not how many adults they want it seems
This is a good point, people can’t see past the difficult toddler years and can’t imagine how wonderful is when you have a whole bunch of adults and they are all your now adult DC.

Right? I suppose everyone finds one stage or the other the most challenging but babies are my Everest and everything that follows after is progressively easier. The idea that people want babies and then simply tolerate the children they become is upside down in my view. My teens are an absolute breeze and a pleasure, and far better company than their colicky infant selves.

Your middle class privilege is showing 😬

I say that in a kind way because I’m in the same boat but I grew up on the breadline so maybe see things a little differently.

People whose biggest worry is ‘house deposits, uni fees, extra plane seats…etc’ those people absolutely can afford to have an extra child they’re just choosing not to, it’s a valid choice but still a choice.

When most people talk about not affording a third it’s much more about

• 2 more years of nappies/wipes
• food cost increases
• running a Warmer home for babies
• formula/milk
• childcare costs to continue working

I wouldn't want to sire "a whole bunch of adults" any more than a whole bunch of toddlers. Each to their own, but I wouldn't assume that it's lack of imagination making people keep the numbers down. Far from it.

There's such a lot of degrading, animalistic language when people frame raising children now. So parents are 'breeders', and we, or perhaps just men given to origins of the word, now 'sire' children, do we? What are people hoping to achieve by building a narrative of family reduced to the beastial level - as though something dirty and beneath civilized behaviour?

The only thing I’d say to this is that it’s reliant on having healthy kids.
For example hubby and I can definitely appreciate the pushing through the difficult baby toddler stage in exchange for a wonderful adult at the end but then our eldest was born autistic, non verbal with a host of other challenges (no history on either side totally curve balled us) but he may well never live or function independently. Our second was born before we knew about eldest’s autism and she is neurotypical so now DH and I are very concerned about rolling the dice on a third because we couldn’t meet the needs of another disabled child.

Yes, I get that the assumption that things get progressively easier is built on the pre-condition that children become increasingly independent. In fairness, I was only mapping out my experience as a counterpoint that people with three children do so because they are enamoured by the baby stage.

I’ve posted about helping my DC with uni fees and mortgages on this thread and I also grew up very poor. Maybe it’s because I’m now in a relatively middle class profession and I have the chance to support my kids in ways I wasn’t, I have chosen to stop at 2. Like you say it’s a choice, but ensuring DC don’t struggle as young adults is exceedingly important to me.

We can afford to give two children a really good life. We have a nice big house and garden in a safe leafy area, we can afford two sets of private school fees, extracurricular activities and holidays for two children. We can afford to pay two children through university and provide good sized house deposits for two children.
If we have a third then, even though we would have space in our current house, the effect of lost earnings/additional childcare means affording our current house would become much more of a strain. Private school for 3 would become unaffordable, we would need to majorly reduce our pension savings to put them all through university, and house deposit help would be much more limited.
So of course we would be far from living in poverty, we could afford a 3rd child and still get by fine. But I don't want us to have to get by, I want the nice life that we can currently afford for our kids, and I can't see the benefits of having a 3rd outweighing having to give all of that up and make do with a lower standard of living.
It's just a matter of what people value and prioritise. I know some people love having and raising children so much that they would grab the opportunity to have as many as they could possibly afford. Others like myself have a clear lifestyle that is important for us to be able to have for our family and would choose to have a smaller family in order to make that possible. Neither is right or wrong, just different.

@Thehonestbadger if by "middle class privilege" you mean that I want my children to enjoy (and expect to provide for them) the opportunities and lifestyle I enjoyed growing up then damn straight I do. What sort of parent wants to give their children less than they had themselves? I don't think my kids need more than I had but do they deserve less? No!

@DisquietintheRanks
@ApplePie20

Theres nothing wrong with wanting to provide your children a nice comfortable life to be honest we are much in the same boat.

The point I’m making is it’s a privileged boat and it’s not a ‘I can’t afford another child’ boat it’s a ‘I would have to reduce the high standard of life I want for them and the financial support I’m able to offer them through adult hood’ boat.

Supporting an adult with cars, house deposits and uni fees actually has nothing to do with whether someone is able to afford to feed clothe and care for them as a child.
considerations like this generally don’t even cross the minds of those on lower incomes. Largely because no one did it for them they don’t expect to have to do it for their kids. We see this strongly in our mixed social circles.

I disagree. Cars and house deposits are very different from allowing your child to access higher education- it's not their fault that parental income is used to decide grants.

What an odd comment. Siring in particular is an old-fashioned word and about humans, not animal-specific. I don't love the term breeders, no one's meant to as it's usually used pejoratively, but it's a bit fantastical and over-sensitive to see it as some recent spiral of animalistic language.

1. VERBIf a man sires a child, he makes a woman pregnant and she gives birth to a child.

[old-fashioned]

1. COUNTABLE NOUNYour sire is your father.

[old-fashioned] https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/sire#:~:text=2.-,verb,%5Bold%2Dfashioned%5D

Yeah, the noun and the verb are different. The verb chiefly refers to animal mating. You'll know this because you'll see it as the first definition on you own link.

1. When a male animal, especially a horse, sires a young animal, he makes a female pregnant so that she gives birth to it.

And why that second definition that you have is highlighted is "(old fashioned)" - old fashioned and sits comfortably alongside discourses around women as chattel.

And yeah, I'll take that it may be over-sensitive, but I think that there is momentum in reframing motherhood as a kind of low class activity - the sneery comments that women with larger families are somehow less-than or baby-mad, an activity that lacks logic and restraint - and you can see that right through this thread.

OK, when people say they can’t afford a third child, they mean one of two things:

1. We literally cannot afford to have a third child - it would jeopardise our ability to eat/pay rent or mortgage/heat our home. (In this situation there’s no way, even with all the will in the world.)
2. We could have a third child and still eat and heat our home, but the impact on our family’s current lifestyle would be unacceptable to us. (This is presumably the situation in which you think ‘where there’s a will there’s a way’ applies.)

Both of those are completely reasonable positions for a family to take. Just because you want to find a way doesn’t mean other families are required to.

But saying ‘where there’s a will there’s a way’ is totally different from your opening post which suggests that a third child won’t have any material impact on a family and their lifestyle if people just space them out properly.

Yes, and actually I’d say it was thinking ahead to the pre-teen/teenager/young adult years that made me decide to stick at 2.

I can't see that, sorry. Most people are being practical as befits a thread about the financial impact of having more DC. Most people are in the middle, as ever, but you're bound to get some sneery ones at the extreme who balance the other extreme who think childbirth is a miracle and motherhood is sacrosanct.

Extra birthday and Xmas presents. Extra bday parties. Any clubs the kids do x 3. School trips x 3. Uniform x3. Clothes and shoes x 3. Possibly needing bigger house. Needing a bigger car also is. More food more packed lunches. More furniture. Before and after school clubs x3 etc

Loads of things to pay for an extra child. I've thought about all this when deciding not to have the third!

The cost of three older children is terrifying. I will actually die in my workplace, I can't ever afford to retire. I try and warn the "more the merrier" brigade about this (my second child was twins).

Hi OP, you've asked why people talk about these considerations more when it comes to moving from 2 to 3 than they do 1-2. I think its because having 2 kids is kind of a default. I think most people who want children want children plural, not child singular, and therefore the question is not whether to stop at 1 but when to stop once you have 2.

And I say this as someone who only has 1 child by choice, so I'm not trying to knock parents of only children.

If you want a 3rd kid you can do it but there will be more costs involved. Childcare etc.

Asking about it on mumsnet is asking for trouble to be honest, many people who have decided on 2 can be overly defensive, it's an opportunity to defend their decision to the death, and belittle others.

I may have had more than 2 if I'd started earlier, but 2s fine. People manage with 3+, you ll need to work it out, but don't mention 3 around here you'll get trolled to the maximum.

3rd child costs more money. Wrap around care plus nursery might make childcare more than wages.

Car needs to big enough for 2 + car seats, food for an extra kid plus all the extras like swimming lessons, dance, rugby etc. also need at least 3 bed house…

Not many people want to babysit 3 kids either!