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 live in a very middle class area (at least by money - lots of "new money" around!) and there are loads of people I know, including us, with 3 or 4 kids.

It probably depends where you live - we're in the Midlands so money probably goes further

If it is true that the “middle class” have less kids than those poorer, I suspect it is because of their aspirational lifestyle expectations - keeping up
with the Jones - living in a naice area - private schools - expensive gyms/clubs/hobbies/holidays. Poor people don’t do expensive things (unless they’re crazy and building up scary debt)

There are cheap ways to live even with children but the MC would not want to live in rough areas etc

If the OP is saying that poorer people are better off
than the MC then why don’t the MC get worse paid jobs so they can live it up on benefits?

What a bs over reach. I am neither poor or wealthy … 6 children work very hard and no I don’t have “family money”. It’s about choice. If you prioritise a nanny, prep school, etc then that is going to need wealth

I work in inner London in the NHS. We not infrequently have patients with 4-6 kids. Last week someone had 8. They tend to belong to South-east Asian or orthodox Jewish families. But there is a good number of white English too. The common denominator is poverty and mental ill health in the parents. Just talking about my patient group obviously.

Yes. And I think many middle class people aspire to save for stuff in the future, like driving lessons, uni fees and house deposits. So that can influence the number of children people have. If that stuff is financially unreachable, then people may choose to have more kids.

Indeed. If you’re sensible and careful with money, you think about the financial risks and perhaps make a decision not to do it. If you’re poor and perhaps less sensible you just do it and think of the consequences later. Culture and religion is a whole other ball park.

I do agree that it’s increasingly the preserve of the rich and the struggling. But would add the third group of the strict religious - committed catholics, evangelical “quiverful” types, brethren, Orthodox Jews, strict (rather than cultural) Islamic families - these all have a larger “norm” and are encouraged to make sacrifices for more children. The aspiration IS the large family, not what you can provide for them.

I think the choice of middle income families to stop at 2 kids is a lot more nuanced than simply wanting luxuries, extra curriculars, holidays etc.
The economics of 3 kids is different to 2 for a lot of working families. I think there is a very relaxing "two child cliff" if you are in a certain income bracket.
For example - I work 4 days a week, DH is full time. We need to do this to cover costs like mortgage, bills, pension etc. with one or two kids, we can still afford a bit of "surplus" money that could go on things like a family holiday or drama classes/tutoring/sports club etc. However, with a third child it would be financially (ie due to nursery) and logistically a LOT more difficult for me to remain in paid employment. opportunities to go down to working, say, 2 days a week, are hard to come by in my field. So either I would get really hammered by childcare costs or I would have to temporarily leave the workforce and take the risk that, as a woman approaching middle age, it might be hard to re-enter paid employment after a gap.
This is not just about keeping up with the jones's. At least if you live and work in a high cost area.
Like it or not, our economic system in this country is predicated on the assumption that middle earners will save for their own retirements and probably have an asset (eg a property of their own) so that they have a roof over their heads, and some capital to fund elder care if needed. So most middle income parents need to stay in the workforce to at least some degree to make the numbers work. The state expects families earning in my (not lavish) bracket will cover our own arses and financially plan our futures carefully.
I think it's different if you are very wealthy/are a very high earner or very poor.
I would have liked three kids personally but it feels too financially risky to be a SAHM and extremely hectic to be a working mum.
It's really not about wanting holidays in Italy or violin lessons for my precious offspring.
I'm Catholic btw and two children is probably the most common family size in the parish.

A very REAL two child cliff I mean, not relaxing! I apologise for my autocorrect 🤦🏻‍♀️

We live in the NE where house prices are low and I know as many people with 3DC as have 2DC. Very middle class area (so above average incomes) but it's the same where I grew up in rural Scotland, house prices are cheap and people fill them. There's a cultural element to it, my Uni friends in London all have 1 or 2 DC, and I know some that have restricted their family for private school. That's not the decision I would make, I think siblings are more valuable than an expensive education.

Oh wow, I actually meant that I would do it myself (I've tutored quite a few GCSE subjects), but that's wild that they expected it 😯

YANBU - very rich, very poor or very religious to have more than two!

I think it’s usually one extreme or the other with large families. They’re often really wealthy and never have to worry about how to fund them or on a low income and don’t particularly care about how to fund them as worst case scenario, the tax payer will foot the bill for everything other than child benefit.

SEN is more prevelent in families in poverty this is not controversial

Having a child with a disability or additional needs who can’t attend regular childcare, needs a specialist or home education, has high care needs is more likely to mean that one or both parents are unable to work full time or at all, which of course then lowers household income. Couples with disabled children are statistically more likely to separate, which again has an impact on the household income of their resident parent. Low income in adulthood frequently correlates with poor educational attainment and employability, often linked to those adults’ own additional needs, some of which have a degree of heritability (e.g. autistic parents are more likely to have autistic children.) There are undeniable and uncontentious links with a range of drivers.

Middle earners (actual middle earners, not the people mumsnetters think are middle on a household income of over 100k...) COULD have more kids if they weren't fussed about having them share rooms, not forking out for lots of activities, making the older kids look after the younger (and also do a fair bit of housework) etc. But most of them won't. Rightly or wrongly, the middle class idea that it's child abuse to put kids in bunk beds or not give them everything they want in terms of hobbies and tech etc is firmly entrenched. Poor people (and a lot of immigrant groups) aren't as likely to think like that.

Yes but largely because many families need two incomes and that makes it tricky to have more than two/three. Those who have more are either SAHP or are so wealthy they can have a couple nannies

In my experience it’s the more well off families who can afford to have one parent not working, or the very low income families who rely on benefits who have 3 or more children, the more middle class have one or two children because they started having children later, have careers rather than jobs and want to give their children expensive hobbies and holidays that wouldn’t be possible with more children.

Social housing’s the kicker in expensive areas. People with lots of kids should end up richer - more workers and taxpayers produced.

Interesting to see if it works.

I'm just staggered that people are still rude and ignorant enough to ask others when they are planning to have a baby. There's a special place in hell for people like this.

We have three children and earn well but not in prep school and nanny territory.

I don’t think three is that unusual around here, but it is unusual to see families with more than three children unless they fit your description of being at either end of the wealth spectrum.

There is a mild link if the SEN is hereditary and either creates a learning difficulty or a disability that means difficulty finding/holding down a job.
Having SEN doesn’t mean you will end up on a low income/unemployed, but it definitely can.

Every gathering!

What is fascinating is the stark contrast between what the women say versus the men. The SAHMs are much more judgemental and make noises about my fertility or how awful it is that women prioritise their career and have their children raised by strangers. The men however, have an entirely different view and often make comments like “you are doing the right thing”, “it is a big commitment”, “having a career is important”.

I should add, not all SAHMs hold these views but the ones I am surrounded with, have never had to work and just don’t understand where I’m coming from.

Yes, I think having lots of children is something that only the v rich or v poor do.

a bit like smoking, or having horses.

Or living on “estates”.