AIBU to think very large families are rarer in middle incomes?

[Notonyournelly1]

Every family gathering, I get the usual “when are you having a baby?” question and I give the same answers on rotation. Off the back of my comment, the family member responded by saying that childcare costs are far more reasonable than people make out, and that having children isn’t “expensive”.

They don’t work, will never have to work and are very wealthy. They have 3 children already and assume (I have not asked) that they will have at least one more given the conversation. That will never be me and this has made me think about larger families in the UK. I do see having a large family as a luxury these days. Although, I do know of a few couples who do not work and have larger than average families.

Q: AIBU to think that very large families are more likely to be found at either end of the income spectrum, rather than among middle-income families?

YABU - large families exist across the income spectrum.

YANBU - it’s a recognisable pattern.

I think you definitely have a point, because there are two different sliding scales at play: how much money people have, and how much people think is necessary to spend on a child (beyond the basics - I'm talking activities, hobbies, holidays, etc). There will definitely be an area somewhere in the middle where people think children need more than they can afford.

I struggle to believe that anyone with children would say ‘childcare costs are far more reasonable than people make out’, if they are actually using childcare.

Where are these people based? A nanny is going to be ~£50k all in round these parts, even a term time only prep school nursery is getting on for £18k. A full
time nursery getting on for £30k a year.

But yes, I agree that very large families are now the preserve of the rich and the poor.

Yes I agree. The middle incomers can’t afford more kids. The lowest income ‘earn’ more by having more children. The middle earners spend more by having more kids. And the richest people can do what they want because they aren’t worried about the income or outgoings.

In my experience the families I know with more than 2 children are either low earners and not in full time employment or the very rich. Your ‘average’ family with say a joint income (before tax) of say 55-60K or a single income of say 27-30K, usually have one or possibly two children.

Look at Millie Radford for example, I don’t know many 25 year olds who can afford 4 children.

The person who said it doesn’t work, so may not use much/any childcare, and are maybe just sort of aware that there are free hours so why is everyone making such a fuss.

Also if they’re very wealthy, they may just be totally out of touch. A friend I went to uni with had an extremely rich dad who said that the increase to £9k a year tuition fees was perfectly reasonable, based on the fact it was much much much less than he’d been paying for her private school anyway.

Time and money. I am neither cash rich or time rich! We would have to use nurseries full time and the costs would be eye watering.

Once they go to school, the childcare costs are reduced but then, like you say, you have the hobbies and after school club, etc.

Totally out of touch and has no idea! They both went to boarding school…

The middle income earners have to plan properly. The state aren’t going to help them and kids are going to be costly. So they choose to stop after two. The rich can afford more. The feckless will have as many as they like and let the state sort out the consequences. It’s why the two child cap was wildly popular, it made things fairer.

Im in Australia, but statistics back you up here at least. Larger families here tend to be either low income, or high income. The exception being, of course, blended families, but they are usually shared across more parents.

Around here, ethnic families have at least three children.

I think there is a point where even wealthy people stop at 1/2 as an active choice if they’re thinking about private school fees. You’ve got to be swimming in cash to put 3 kids through private. I’ve got one in prep and one in a state primary at the moment and there are barely any 3 parent families at the prep but loads at the state school.

Yes, most definitely. This also extends to housing options, at least in London. (In my street, for example, we now have very high earners and people in social housing with lots of kids - no one in the middle!)

Absolutely. And I think, especially now, it's the hobbies/activities part that people aren't prepared for. I am starting to come out of the "childcare years" in terms of paying through the nose for nursery etc, but I'm still paying a fortune in clubs, sports, days out, trips etc. I know that none of it is strictly necessary, but I guess that marks me out as one of the people in the middle zone - I want my kids to have those things in their childhood, so I have to cap my childbearing accordingly 😆

I was one of 4, my mum stayed at home until I went to school and then worked part time as a secretary which she did go to college for to learn typing but dad failed his school exams so worked 8 hours in a factory, mum never went back full time.
Dad was made redundant at 55 and used his redundancy money to bridge the gap until he got his pension at 60 and mum also retired at 60 and they’ve spent the last 25 years enjoying cruises, fine dining and the nicer things in life.

We had a huge 4 bed house in the south which they extended so is now 5, Mortgage was paid off when we were small and we had sailing boats, new cars, multiple holidays abroad, expensive furnishings and nice clothes and plenty of money in the bank.
How?
We struggled to raise 2 kids and are both professionals, all our wages on child care, mortgage and bills but times have changed and my parents would be very poor today, they wouldn’t understand someone on their wage today not being a millionaire and needing Universal Credit to survive.

I don't know anyone with a large family. I know there is a perception of poor people having tons of kids, but is that still the case?

My dc are now young adults (25 down to 19). We are definitely middle income, but we have four dc. Factors which led to this: (1) I wasn’t working when my dc were pre-school, so childcare wasn’t really an issue, and (2) although we live in the SE, houses are relatively cheap in our town, meaning we had a big enough house to accommodate the children.

As the children went to school I got a (middle income) job, and as Dh’s job was flexible, again childcare wasn’t an issue.

I know that when my dc were very small a friend was pregnant with no.3. A London friend of hers commented on her ‘huge’ family. She said, “Come to X Town, three is an average family here!” I think when you have an empty bedroom, another child is a lot more tempting.

FWIW, my dc haven’t been impossibly expensive as they grew up. I only have 2 at university now. Two have graduated, so that’s a relief. We managed to give them nice (i.e., achingly middle-class) holidays, and support them in their hobbies - although we did veto Triathlon as being too expensive.

I had an amazing childhood and I’d like my children to experience the things I did. People can say that children just need basics but I have friends who didn’t get to experience much as children, and the lack of opportunities has posed an issue in their adult life. Travel is one example! They can be quite narrow minded and I put that down to their lack of education and experience with people from different walks of life.

I know that housing costs were much lower decades ago, but I really don’t think there ever a time when someone in a factory job could afford the lavish lifestyle described above. That just doesn’t ring true. It is true that in the past it was easier for people to start at the bottom and then get promoted to more senior roles, so perhaps your father became a senior manager?

Every family in my local expensive school has at least 3 kids (and the whole family in their WhatsApp profile picture).
I stopped at 2, and most of my friends at a similar tax rate have either 1 child or none at all.

Yes - if you want a lot of children, you need either to have a lot of money, or be dependent on benefits, aka the taxpayer.

Hmmm I’d say we’re probably in the middle - DH earns around £70k and I’m a SAHM so we’re not on benefits and can afford occasional holidays etc but also we’re certainly not rich - that’s not a huge wage combined. I know quite a few SAHM’s in similar circumstances with 3 children.

So maybe when it is the case for middle earners they tend to have one parent not working as childcare would just eat up one wage anyway?

This

YANBU

I live in one of the most poverty stricken boroughs in London and 5 child families are very common here.

There are loads of 3 and 4 child families too, but 5 seems to be becoming increasingly common.

I live in one of the most expensive cities in the world and my social circle is 50% expats (like me) and 50% citizens. All middle class professionals and millennials.

Everyone either has 1 child or none.

I don’t know anyone with 2 or more, unless they’re the next generation up and had their kids a while ago.

I listen to various political podcasts and I was listening to one about the 2-child benefit cap a while back and one of the participants was saying that low income families and very high income families have lots of kids. I have never checked the stat but sounded plausible.