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.

With kindness, sod them. I’m probably deemed “middle class,” so we won’t qualify for any benefits for having children, therefore it’s not financially viable to have a large family. For those of us in this position, unfortunately your job/career IS important as it’s your lifeline.

They should never have scrapped the 2 child benefit cap. Most people stop at the number of children they can afford. That is on them if they don't. Not the taxpayers problem.

Ha! I never thought of that but where I grew up, in a very working class northern town only the traveller kids had horses, when I met DH from a wealthy part of the Cotswold and all his posh friends had horses or at least could ride and it took me by surprise.

I think that your relative was very rude and socially unaware to comment that childcare ‘isn’t that expensive’ when you don’t have to use it!

I’d have been tempted to say, ‘childcare for one child here costs £x a month which is about/slightly less than what I earn’

Some people are oblivious and I say that as someone fortunate enough to have never had to pay for childcare. I would never comment on how expensive childcare is for others!

I’m surprised she couldn’t hear your eyes roll at her comment then

Yes I think there is a correlation

Yes exactly. Same here re working class north and horses.

when I went to uni in a very posh setting I couldn’t understand why all of the students my age smoked. I’d never seen anything like it amongst my friends. The only people I knew who smoked were my very elderly northern grandparents who lived on a council estate in Sunderland.

In the area I grew up in, it was fairly common for girls to have their own horses. It didn’t seem to be based on wealth but I’ve grown up in a farming community so that may cloud my judgement/ memory!

I know very few working/middle class people who have more than 2. I know you could debate what those terms even mean, but I'm talking about people who go to work in a blue collar/professional type job, and don't have independent or family wealth. Having 1 or none is far more common than more than 2 for people in their 30s/40s round here.
You've got me thinking now, so on our whole street, a few people over 50 have 3 (no longer at home). Literally no other working family does. No one is very rich here though!

You are generally correct from what I’ve seen. I think though we’re probably unusual as we’re a middle income family with 4 children.

My DC are a bit older- teens but our income from 2 salaries has been around 50-60k. I think we have managed for a few reasons; cheap-ish housing where we live- small 3/4 bed house 215K 10 years ago, my DM moved near us when I was pregnant with DC3 and has helped with childcare ( though we would have managed just about without her help), worked PT, term time only when they younger (till end of primary) and we also have a very modest lifestyle- the DC did a lot of activities but we had cheap cars, camping holidays etc.

I feel very lucky that we were able to afford the family size we wanted on a modest income but I think that our family is unusual amongst larger families in general.

I've noticed this too. It also appears to be becoming more pronounced with families in their forties more likely to have more kids and a stay at home or part time parent than the ones in their mid thirties, even when you account for not having finished yet.

Hmm maybe, I’m a higher earner but wouldn’t say I’m properly wealthy as I’m in my 20s. But I’m not in a rush to have kids. I do think of the financial implications a lot, as I’d want them to have the same sort of childhood I did so eg I’d want to be a homeowner first, have settled in a good area for children with good schools etc. whereas right now my life is very corporate and city based and I’m not wanting to change that.

I wonder whether some of this is, at least in part, down to women now having higher paying jobs/ careers. I’m the higher earner in our household and that has definitely played on my mind. We have discussed shared parental leave and I know that this hasn’t been a consideration (or something they are aware of) for friends in lower paid roles. There is always a concern that long periods of time away from work, even if that is maternity leave, would have a negative impact on my career. That anxiety would be in the way of me having any more than 2 children.

Although, there are many sets of twins and triplets in my family. So on the flip side, I need to consider the very real possibility of multiples. Nursery fees are around £1500 per month. Realistically, if we had twins/ triplets, DH would need to go part-time as £3-4.5k a month would not be feasible. Mad really!

I think the OP is correct but I know a lot of people who could afford more kids but only have 1/2 because the emotional labour is another consideration - there’s only so many times I can go to the primary school carol concert and parenting is expected to be so intense now plus last for a lot longer.

We have a 4 year age gap and I've been surprised by how many other families have a similar age gap because it avoids 2 lots of nursery costs at the same time. It would be hard to have a really big family if you had to leave that between them.

With the nursery fees they have got much more reasonable since the free hours came in. The scheme isn’t perfect but we have £1000s more in the bank compared to before it came in. I think people underestimate how much life changes before they have DC. We did for a time but I only know 2 families who actually send or consistently sent their DC to nursery 5 days a week and pay full time fees. Most have some family help or both parents don’t work full time. Lots have both, family help and work part time.

But overall yes I see the trend too of larger family size at either end of the income scale. We’re part of a church as are lots of the families at the local schools. In this context 3 child, middle class families aren’t uncommon. But I think the Christianity means people often get married younger so have more time to have DC and people are less likely to centre their decisions on finances.

Definitely that. I've often thought it would have been all well and good to have six kids back when you could send them out to play by themselves and leave the baby in the pram outside while you did housework.

With modern parenting from its dire warnings about not responding to babies to expectations for keeping kids safe and suitably entertained to schools setting homework at a younger age and expecting more parental involvement, to expectations to supervise and scaffold teenagers at increasing ages then it's no wonder most people couldn't cope with a big family.

In my personal experience, this stacks up.

I don't know anyone who was incredibly wealthy pre children so even the very wealthy people I know now have only 1 or 2 and their wealth has come as the childen became older (eg their children went to state primary school and private secondary).

Those for whom money is no object will have as many children as they want or nature/medicine will allow because they don't need to factor in the costs.

All the educated professional middle income earners I know have 0-2 children. These families are also focused on providing enrichment opportunities and hobbies etc for their childen. They also need a factor in car size and the additional costs of bigger accommodation if they go on holiday etc. They have also taken time out, married later or had children later due to education and professional training and focusing on their careers.

All the lower income families I know (personally and professionally) have larger families and often work in low paid part time jobs and rely on top up benefits. Providing enrichment opportunities and hobbies are far lower on their list of priorities. Many don't have a car or go on holidays so having a big enough car and holiday accommodation etc arent as much of a consideration. Many of them started having children at younger ages. I know someone who has 9 children. The eldest is 30 and the youngest is 5. She hasn't take time out for education or put her family on hold for a career (or vice versa) for example.

So you’re linking SEN to household income?

As a correlation, it is often linked.

If one parent has to give up work to care for a disabled child because school attendance is unpredictable or there are multiple medical appointments to attend, then that is a whole person's income lost or they work in less secure lower paid work when they can. Significant needs also impact on longer term finances if a child becomes an adult who needs longer term care and a parent can't return to work either.