s/o things that are changing because fewer kids are being born

[Clarita]

I'm an only child and DH is one of two. We have two children. We did try for three but the third pregnancy was rough and I don't think I want to do that again. 

DH and his family definitely didn't want us to be an only child family. I feel like they believe all the misconceptions about only children and think I'm just a miracle. To me the reality is only children get a lot of expectations thrust on them and is often the only one to blame should problems arise (seriously I've been blamed for things the other parent did because "well you are the only kid here who else could it be..."). I also didn't have "built-in" children companions so I had to learn to make friends everywhere.   

[Laura Corin]

11 hours ago, SKL said:

I am curious ... how many boardies and their siblings had more, less, or the same number of kids as their parents?

My folks had 6 kids, though I think they only intended to have 3.

Of the 6 kids, the two oldest each had 1 kid (not counting steps).  Then me, I adopted 2.  Younger sib had 2, and the others had zero.  So all told, my folks' 6 kids had a total of 4 biological grandkids.  (There won't be more, given our ages.)

Why?  I think the fact that we didn't marry young (or at all) may have been the biggest factor.  Partly that it led to more mature choices, partly that it may have impacted the couples' fertility and related things.  Also a likely factor was better birth control options.

My father had three kids including me in his first family and two in his second.  All but one of his children have two kids and my brother has one. Most of my brothers/sisters in law came from families of three or more kids.

Husband is one of two. He has two kids and his brother has three. 

 

Edited April 28 by Laura Corin

[historically accurate]

17 hours ago, SKL said:

I am curious ... how many boardies and their siblings had more, less, or the same number of kids as their parents?

My folks had 6 kids, though I think they only intended to have 3.

Of the 6 kids, the two oldest each had 1 kid (not counting steps).  Then me, I adopted 2.  Younger sib had 2, and the others had zero.  So all told, my folks' 6 kids had a total of 4 biological grandkids.  (There won't be more, given our ages.)

Why?  I think the fact that we didn't marry young (or at all) may have been the biggest factor.  Partly that it led to more mature choices, partly that it may have impacted the couples' fertility and related things.  Also a likely factor was better birth control options.

My father came from a family of 7 kids; my mom came from a family of 3. Father's side children had: 3,3,0,2,3,0,2. My mom's side children had 2,3,0. I was from a family of 2; my brother has 0, and I have 3. 

DH's father had 2 (1 biological, 1 adopted). DH's mother had a family of 7. Father's side had 2, and 3 (1 biological, 2 adopted). Mother's side, since it's larger, I am unsure of who all goes with who, but the 4 I do know all had 3 children. No one had close to 7 children, maybe one family has 4? DH came from the family with 1 biological and 2 adopted. DH has 3, his brother and sister have 2 each. 

Out of my children, ages 22, 18, and 17 (so subject to change with life changes), two do not plan on children and one plans on adopting. 

[73349]

22 hours ago, SKL said:

I am curious ... how many boardies and their siblings had more, less, or the same number of kids as their parents?

My folks had 6 kids, though I think they only intended to have 3.

Of the 6 kids, the two oldest each had 1 kid (not counting steps).  Then me, I adopted 2.  Younger sib had 2, and the others had zero.  So all told, my folks' 6 kids had a total of 4 biological grandkids.  (There won't be more, given our ages.)

Why?  I think the fact that we didn't marry young (or at all) may have been the biggest factor.  Partly that it led to more mature choices, partly that it may have impacted the couples' fertility and related things.  Also a likely factor was better birth control options.

My grandparents were one of three, one of ten (one died in infancy; none would grow up to have more than four), one of two, and one of two. So only one family was a larger size than would be typical today--and even then, there was clear judgment from others because they were having more than they could afford (e.g., having to pay the OB by doing his laundry) or perhaps manage (turns out twins run in families 🤷‍♂️). Cars and college were not considerations, and all my great-grandmothers were married by age 27 AFAIK.

Both of my grandmothers started having kids by age 18; one would have just two and the other four. Those six children would go on to have a total of 12 (at least 2-3 unplanned), seven of them raised at a standard of living lower than their parents' as kids, three higher, and two about the same.

Of the 12 of us, each has 0-2 (including stepkids) except one outlier (3 bio, not all planned, plus a stepkid). I do not know of any who want more, though I'm not close enough to a couple of them to be 100% sure. Personally, I was married in my early 20s and chose to have one.

Edited April 28 by 73349

[Lady Florida.]

23 hours ago, SKL said:

I also think that living in a big family teaches us skills and attitudes that can result in less consumption over a lifetime.

I grew up in a family of 3 - my mother, my brother, and me. I learned the skills and attitudes that result in less consumption growing up in a small, poor family.

 

22 hours ago, SKL said:

I am curious ... how many boardies and their siblings had more, less, or the same number of kids as their parents?

 

My parents had two kids. My brother and I each have one. My niece has three but the first two are a set of twins. Ds 26 has none yet.

Dh's dad was an only child. I don't know why but considering they were people from the mountains of Tennessee I suspect infertility was part of it. Most people around them had many children. However, that one child (FIL) had four kids. Those four between them have ten. All of the ten are now adults and between them have fourteen. Ds 26 is the only one of them who as yet has none. He does want children but isn't ready financially or emotionally. 

ETA: Both of my parents came from families with three children (quite unusual for Catholics of their day). My father was the middle child of three boys. My mother was the oldest of three girls. 

ETA again: Both families were immigrants who settled in large (and large-ish) cities. High numbers of children were a burden rather than a necessity. There was no farm for them to work on. Instead there were small tenements into which fitting another child was difficult, and another mouth to feed made the food harder to spread out. 

There seems to be this idyllic idea that all of our ancestors were farmers. Not so. Cities have been around for thousands of years and some of us come from "city folk". Growing your own food, making everything, etc., wasn't a big part of city life like it was on a farm. 

Edited April 28 by Lady Florida.

[Spryte]

FOO with two kids here. DH is one of three in his FOO. We have three kids — however, I didn’t actually contribute to the world population with any of them. DH added one to the overall population. 

Of our three, the oldest is married and both are adamantly opposed to having kids. Both have had surgery to make it impossible, with the knowledge they can adopt later if needed. The youngest is also opposed but it’s too early to tell if that might change. And the middle wants kids but given their life circumstances, it’s unlikely. So I’m not sure we will have grandkids at any point, which is fine.

Edited April 28 by Spryte

[SKL]

I was thinking some more about this, and particularly one of my in-laws.  She was on the younger end of her parents' 15 children (though due to multiple removals by the welfare authorities, she didn't grow up with all 15).  They were very poor (dirt floor, no running water poor).

At 15, as was normal in her family, she got pregnant, married, and had kid1.  Kid 3 was born on her 18th birthday, and then she got her tubes tied.  (She later divorced, remarried, reversed the sterilization and had 1 more kid.)  Her sibs also had fairly average numbers of kids.

BUT.  Her 2 older daughters started having their kids in their late teens - a total of 6 grandkids from them.  And then their daughters started having kids in their late teens.  And to the extent I'm aware of her sibs' lives, this is a common family pattern.  Although each child isn't having an unusual number of kids, due to how young they are starting, this family is contributing more than the US average to the fertility rate.  (She has at least 8 grand- and great-grand kids (so far) while all 6 of my folks' children have a total of 0 grandkids so far.)  Historically, this pattern has been fairly common worldwide.

So, the fact that our culture is tending toward an older age for starting families is having a significant long-term effect, not just because each person will have fewer kids (generally) if they start later, but because there will be fewer generations out of that family in the long run.

Edited April 28 by SKL

[Wheres Toto]

My maternal grandmother had 13 kids, 9 lived to adulthood.

1-3 kids, 3 grandkids, 1 greatgrand so far
2-2 kids, 2 grandkids
3-3 kids - 8 grandkids (1 had 7 kids, 1 had 1 kid, and 1 has none)
4-7 kids - only 4 grandkids
5-(mom) 2 kids, 3 grandkids
6-1 kid, not sure about grandkids
7-5 kids, not sure about grandkids
8-2 kids, no grandkids yet
9-3 kids, 7 grandkids (1 had 4, 1 had 2 and 1 had 1)

I have three kids but two different fathers so replacement rate.   My younger two children say they don't plan to have kids.  Oldest dd is probably getting engaged soon and she wants children.  Probably 2. 

In dh's family the generation of our children and the one after is having many kids, starting young, often while in uncertain living situations, often then leaving them in the care of their parents. 

[livetoread]

23 minutes ago, SKL said:

So, the fact that our culture is tending toward an older age for starting families is having a significant long-term effect, not just because each person will have fewer kids (generally) if they start later, but because there will be fewer generations out of that family in the long run.

That's an interesting point.

[dirty ethel rackham]

On 4/27/2024 at 12:27 PM, SKL said:

I also think that living in a big family teaches us skills and attitudes that can result in less consumption over a lifetime.

I wouldn't say that was universal.  I have 6 siblings and we were lower middle class.  Most of my siblings definitely have a much greater "consumer attitude" than what we were raised with.  They feel like they "made it" and deserve this lifestyle of bigger and better stuff.  I'm the only one of my family who attempts to embrace a less consumer driven lifestyle - and I'm woefully imperfect at it.  

On 4/27/2024 at 1:08 PM, SKL said:

I am curious ... how many boardies and their siblings had more, less, or the same number of kids as their parents?

My folks had 6 kids, though I think they only intended to have 3.

Of the 6 kids, the two oldest each had 1 kid (not counting steps).  Then me, I adopted 2.  Younger sib had 2, and the others had zero.  So all told, my folks' 6 kids had a total of 4 biological grandkids.  (There won't be more, given our ages.)

Why?  I think the fact that we didn't marry young (or at all) may have been the biggest factor.  Partly that it led to more mature choices, partly that it may have impacted the couples' fertility and related things.  Also a likely factor was better birth control options.

My parents each came from 2 child households - limited by the Depression and loss of a parent.  They had 6 living children. It was normal for Catholics in the 1950s-1960s to have larger families. The attitude was you accepted how many children God gave you.  There may have been financial pressure to provide the basic necessities, but there was less pressure to provide "excellent childhoods."  If your children were fed, moderately clean, and alive at the end of the day, that was success. 

We have 3 children - dh used to joke about wanting 6, but I never thought I'd be able to parent that many.  My siblings never wanted more than 2. It wasn't car size or deferring childbirth as the limiting factor - it was feeling that they didn't want the chaos of a large family.  

On 4/27/2024 at 1:13 PM, prairiewindmomma said:

Larger families may be more efficient when everyone is under the same roof—a pot of soup, hand me down clothes, etc. but a household of 8 eventually becomes 7 separate households as children become adults and move out. A family of 4 becomes 3 households. There are differences down the line.

And in our family's case, many of those families have carried on that consumerism lifestyle.  Even those who remain unmarried.  

One of my children will never marry nor have children.  One claims to never want to marry.  My youngest is on the fence about having children.  She loves kids, but has great concerns about the environmental catastrophe looming and doesn't want to bring children into that future.  

22 hours ago, regentrude said:

None of my friends' choice of family size was dictated by car size. The limiting factor was usually their ability to balance raising kids with the demands of their professions.

This.  Like you mentioned above, there is a significant economic cost to being a SAHM, not just in the present, but down the road.  I suffered similar losses.  

[maize]

When comparing family sizes to those in the past there is a significant statistical point to keep in mind:

In any generation, the percentage of individuals born into large families is higher than the percentage of adults who have large families.

This means you don't get a valid sample of differences in family size by asking a random set of individuals to compare how many children they have with how many their parents and grandparents had.

Here's why, for anyone who wants to dive into what is going on statistically:

Sample: 

Generation 1: 

Couple A: 10 kids

Couple B: 8 kids

Couple C : 5 kids

Couple D :3 kids

Couple E: 2 kids

Couple F: 2 kids

Couple G: 1 kid

Couple H: 1 kid

Couple I: No kids

Couple J: No kids

10 couples, 32 kids, average fertility rate 3.2 kids per family.

But from the kids' perspective, you have

From a family of 10 kids: 10

From a family of 8 kids: 8

From a family of 5 kids: 5

From a family of 3 kids: 3

From a family of 2 kids: 4

From a family of 1 kid: 2

From a family of 0 kids: 0

If all the people from the second generation filled out a survey asking how many kids were in their family of origin, the responses and mean number reported would be:

(10*10+8*8+5*5+3*3+4*2+2*1+0*0)/32=6.5

6.5 kids per family would be the perceived averaged based on polling the children, but the actual average for their generation was 3.2.

Fertility rates have in fact been decreasing almost everywhere in the world--but not nearly as fast as it would appear from this kind of poll!

 

 

 

 

Edited April 28 by maize

[SKL]

While I don't feel like the slowing of population growth (or the slight decrease) is in itself a catastrophe, I also don't believe in all the scary warnings about our kids' or gandkids' future being horrible due to population or climate change.

I feel it's a bit sad to hear how many young adults are saying they won't have kids, not because they don't want kids, but because they believe the future will be horrible.

For my kids, it's obviously totally up to them whether to procreate or not, but I do wonder whether, 60 years from now, there will be a lot of elderly people dying alone because their generation was afraid to have children.

Edited April 28 by SKL

[73349]

28 minutes ago, SKL said:

For my kids, it's obviously totally up to them whether to procreate or not, but I do wonder whether, 60 years from now, there will be a lot of elderly people dying alone because their generation was afraid to have children.

Presently, some people die alone even though they did have children.

I think it's reasonable that some people would take their chances on dying alone over their chances of seeing their  kid(s) or grandkids die or suffer deeply because of disasters and/or ensuing instability. And some people take the opposite bet.

 

Looking at my extended family more broadly, there's an interesting pattern: Kids who grew up in a household with 4 or more kids do not have that more than 4 themselves, and more often fewer. Those who grew up in a household with 3 or fewer kids often choose to have as many as, and sometimes more than, their parents. It would be interesting see what the numbers look like going back farther.

[Rosie_0801]

51 minutes ago, SKL said:

, I also don't believe in all the scary warnings about our kids' or gandkids' future being horrible due to population or climate change.

Maybe it won't be so dire on large land masses, but for islanders around the world it will be. One population of Torres Strait Islanders had to be permanently relocated to the mainland back in the 70's, I think it was and others are currently in court fighting the government about duty of care to protect them from more of that.

[TechWife]

I think this thread on Twitter is good. Hannah Anderson is one of the four accounts I check a couple of times a week. It discusses sending mixed messages. These different messages will surely impact our culture, I’m just not sure how. It’s a thread, so keep reading. 

 

 

[SKL]

I don't think the evidence supports an argument that less income / resources lead to fewer kids.  It's long been a macroeconomic and microeconomic fact that, on average, people with lower incomes / fewer resources have more children.  Here's a 2019 chart for the US, and I think it's even more pronounced if you look at it worldwide.  Not saying that no family ever decided they couldn't afford another pregnancy, but in the big picture, opposite forces are a bigger factor.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/

Edited April 30 by SKL

[Eos]

On 4/27/2024 at 11:08 AM, SKL said:

I am curious ... how many boardies and their siblings had more, less, or the same number of kids as their parents?

 

I'm one of four, that's the number I wanted and that's the number of living kids I have.

My sisters had one, one, and two. One sister was a DES daughter and lost several pregnancies before adopting.

Edited April 30 by Eos

[wisdomandtreasures]

One of two and I have 6. My sister has 1 living. 

[Lawyer&Mom]

In my circles it’s the cost of daycare that limits kids.  Two kids in daycare equaled our mortgage, a third kid in daycare would have been prohibitive.  Moms start having kids later so spacing the kids so they aren’t all in daycare at the same time isn’t really an option.  My coworkers and I would joke that we were too rich to afford a third kid.  Our high salaries allowed us to pay for daycare and not have to stay home, but stay at home moms could have another kid without incurring immediate extra daycare costs.  I’m not complaining at all, it’s like the ultimate first world problem, and we honestly didn’t want more than two kids, but the economics of it all is really interesting to me. 

[SKL]

In the US at least, having more wealth makes the cost of kids way higher.  I'm in favor of the subsidies that we provide for folks raising kids on modest incomes, but those income phase-outs can sting.  😛  And should we discuss higher education?  The FAFSA says that my annual "expected family contribution" for 2 kids is about 4x my take-home pay.  Thank God for public universities.

[TechWife]

On 4/27/2024 at 2:08 PM, SKL said:

I am curious ... how many boardies and their siblings had more, less, or the same number of kids as their parents?

 

We all had fewer kids. I’m one of five. 
# 1 had 1 (and 2 grandkids, 2 great grandkids)

#2 had 3 (and 7 grandkids, 2 great grandkids)

#3 has 0

# 4 has 0

# 5 had 1

#3 & #4 have never married, FWIW. We are all adults