Family size and income levels

[Xantippe]

We also might do well to remember that Back In The Day, a lot of who we think of as kids weren’t “just” kids–they were also wage earners. When JPII was 12 or 14, it wouldn’t have been at all unusual for him to be holding down an after-school job that would help support his family, and no one would have blinked twice at it. A family of eight is a bit easier to feed and clothe when two or three of the kids are working part-time jobs and contributing the money to family upkeep.

Mind you, I’m not saying this is ideal, but it is how many bigger families in the US managed until pretty recently, and how many bigger families all over the world still manage. I think we can all agree that having the seven-year-old skip school to work in a cotton mill isn’t exactly the ideal we should strive for, but there’s a reason that children worked as laborers back then, and it generally wasn’t for fun money.

I once heard a fairly traditional priest give a sermon on the blessings of a large family. While I agreed with a number of his points, I thought some of them were a tad out of touch. To those who worried about finances, he held up Pius X’s family as an example: a dozen or so kids raised in a one-room, dirt-floored house, and they all turned out happy and well, including, of course, St. Pius X. That setup in 19th-century Italy wouldn’t cause anyone to bat an eye, but if you tried that today in America, much less–gasp!–without the appropriate car seats , CPS would be yanking the kids out of that situation yesterday.

In short, we’ve hit a time when parents are expected to have more stuff/do more stuff for their kids than ever before (I’m not talking about the latest gaming system: I’m talking about our society expects every kid to receive medical care, wear appropriate-for-the-season clothing, have various pricey safety implements available at all times, etc) while kids also are no longer contributors to the family finances. Of course children are blessings, and that they’re blessings has ***nothing whatsoever ***to do with how much they financially contribute to a family!–but it is something to bear in mind when comparing our current status to that of people Back In The Day.

Here’s another issue.

It would be one thing to parent like a 19th century US parent with lots of dirt floors, benign neglect, walloping, weekly baths and no dentist and little education…if it were the 19th century today.

As it is, there is a very prevalent (and arguably effective) US middle class parenting culture. Anybody who goes against the current middle class parenting culture runs the risk of looking negligent, unloving, selfish, lazy and even downright evil to others. Like it or not, that’s not a great Christian witness.

One thing that’s been occurring to me recently is how much weight the authors of the New Testament epistles put on living up to outside cultural norms–as long as those norms were not actively sinful. (I can expand on this later if necessary.)

So I think that outside cultural norms on parenting do actually deserve a fair amount of weight.

 

[EasterJoy]

1. When I say 8+ is paradigmatic, I mean CAF paradigmatic. I think you’re right that 4-5 surviving children was more usual in the real world.
2. I’m pretty sure that the Practical Conservative would agree with you on pretty much all your points. Or if not, I would.

I believe what she is primarily addressing is the idea (very popular in conservative religious circles and often seen on CAF) that the only thing standing between young couples and having a large family is laziness, selfishness and materialism.

No, I’m saying that 4-5 was reality after penicillin and before the Pill in a 90% Catholic rural community.

 

[ThePCWife]

The chart is just census survey data for married couples with related children under 18 living with them. I left out all the married couples with no under 18s living with them, because they mostly don’t have little kids around.

There is some variation at the state level, but nearly as much as you’d expect given the range in states’ costs of living. The medians are super high above the national median household income everywhere, even “cheap” states like Idaho or Alabama or Utah or Ohio. And the exact percentage varies from state to state, but it is pretty much 1/3 or more of married families over 75k everywhere, with half or more being not at all unusual.

I also used everyone because I wanted the biggest bucket. Interestingly, there is not a massive deviation as you sort by race, foreign-birth, and that kind of thing. Some groups make a little more at the high end, but the ratios of how many are at 100k or 75k or 50k are surprisingly stable across ethnic groups. The numbers look shocking because everyone who marries and has kids is mostly having to make pretty big bucks these days in every state, of every ethnicity. The national median is driven down by the high number of single people living alone in this country.

That’s why I call it a marriage canyon, if you pull the numbers for single mothers and single fathers, and even cohabiters it’s night and day. I looked this stuff up for my own edification too. I have also been guilty of thinking that mostly families were earning at the national median level, but that hasn’t been true for at least a decade and probably longer.

I also made the tables to remind myself that larger families are super rare, because I have been told frequently that they are common as dirt and I wasn’t looking hard enough.

 

[EasterJoy]

The sad thing is that before birth control people would believe that if you didn’t have a big family it *wasn’t *because you were on birth control. There are now people who actually believe that if you don’t have six or eight or more successful pregnancies it is only because you didn’t *want *to have six or eight or more successful pregnancies.

 

[gardenswithkids]

1. When I say 8+ is paradigmatic, I mean CAF paradigmatic. …

Really??? I have 8 but don’t see many other posters here on CAF with that same number. or more Maybe you’re just reading my posts and a few others where we mention over and over and over that we have eight+ children.

 

[Xantippe]

Really??? I have 8 but don’t see many other posters here on CAF with that same number. or more Maybe you’re just reading my posts and a few others where we mention over and over and over that we have eight+ children.

Yep.

 

[CradleJourney]

The sad thing is that before birth control people would believe that if you didn’t have a big family it *wasn’t *because you were on birth control. There are now people who actually believe that if you don’t have six or eight or more successful pregnancies it is only because you didn’t *want *to have six or eight or more successful pregnancies.

This is true. There were times during our marriage when hubby and I couldn’t seem to even glance at each other without a pregnancy occurring - which made it difficult to be around two other couples we knew who were actively trying to conceive but either never did, or conceived once every five years. For those who were observing from the outside, it would have looked like we were completely lacking in all self control, while the others were “obviously” using birth control.

Hubby currently drives a 1997 car, while I drive a 2002 minivan. We’d probably have newer, more efficient vehicles except so far 4 of the 6 kids have needed braces - which totalled over $18,000 out of pocket over a few years. (Thankfully we still have a year or so before the next one needs them but the cost has gone up and will be around $5000 - aka a good chunk of a newer car.)

If we’d have had $100k+ income, we’d have probably had a couple more, but as it is/was cost made that impossible. As it is we struggle a great deal, both from costs and from dealing with debt that accumulated (very quickly) during periods of joblessness. There’s a lot of guilt placed on us by some that we didn’t “plan ahead” enough - to not have those last couple kids when we didn’t have a nest egg assembled in advanced. Now that they’re older there’s the guilt trip that we have no college savings for them - though two have made it through and we have our fingers crossed for the third one.

It’s something that I question at night - I couldn’t imagine a world without my younger blessings - but there’s so much stress and so much I cannot provide my older/middle kids because of the cost (loss of income plus actual costs) created by having the kids we did.

It really seems to me that the idea we always have complete control over either how many kids we have or how much income we make is a sham - though much of society seems to think we can control both. Instead we can only make the best judgements we can as life is actually happening, and the results - both good and bad are sometimes out of our control.

 

[gardenswithkids]

I was just mentioning this on an old thread, but I think it’s worth doing a stand-alone post on:

thepracticalconservative.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/marriage-and-children-in-wedlock-do-cost-100k-per-year-to-have/

The Practical Conservative puts some very handy information in a single post. Some notes:

–median married family income is surprisingly high ($92k a year for 2-child families, which is the most common number of children for a US family)
–there are some interesting relationships between family size and income
–with more than two children, family income is generally lower and lower, with a recovery at 7+ kids
–interestingly, 39% of married families with 8 or more children make $100k a year or more
–as a rule, the number of married couples with each number of children declines sharply after 2 children. So we start with 10,077,382 married couples with two children and end up with only 16,593 families with 8+ children.

… Even at high incomes, it’s possible to feel broke raising kids these days because the prices are being set by very high income households. …"

I had lots of thoughts about this from when you shared it on the other thread. It makes perfect sense to me.

We generally start out motherhood/parenthood with one child. My husband and I were younger when we had one child, and our careers we’re relatively young. We put our first child full time daycare, which took a huge amount of the second paycheck, but we still came our financially ahead with two incomes.

By the time child #2 came along, I’d cut back to part time work. Daycare took a bigger piece of that second paycheck.

By the time child #3 came along, I stopped working altogether. The result was what this report showed–from child #1 to child #3, our income dropped. We lived on one income for many years.

Fast forward several years to child #7. We’re older. For the parent who worked outside the home, that translates to seniority and experience at work–and experience often brings more $. (If a child comes every 2 years, that would be 12 more years of experience that a working parent has by the time the seventh child comes along.) Plus, our oldest children are older. They don’t need daycare and may even help watch younger siblings. If one parent has been staying home, circumstances may make it desirable and possible for that parent to go back to work at least part time, which then increases the family income. The incentive for a parent who previously stayed home with the children to go back to work increases steadily as the children get older.

So quick summary: 1-2 children, more double incomes in this mix of parents. 3-7 children, more affordable for one parent to stay home than to pay for daycare. 7+ children, parents are older. At least some of the children are older, so between job experience for the parents who stayed in the work place and the opportunity/incentive for stay home parents to go back to work, the family income goes up for those with 7+ children.

I’m sure there’s more to it than just that, but that’s how I explain the income difference as it relates to family size.

 

[Xantippe]

The chart is just census survey data for married couples with related children under 18 living with them. I left out all the married couples with no under 18s living with them, because they mostly don’t have little kids around.

There is some variation at the state level, but nearly as much as you’d expect given the range in states’ costs of living. The medians are super high above the national median household income everywhere, even “cheap” states like Idaho or Alabama or Utah or Ohio. And the exact percentage varies from state to state, but it is pretty much 1/3 or more of married families over 75k everywhere, with half or more being not at all unusual.

I also used everyone because I wanted the biggest bucket. Interestingly, there is not a massive deviation as you sort by race, foreign-birth, and that kind of thing. Some groups make a little more at the high end, but the ratios of how many are at 100k or 75k or 50k are surprisingly stable across ethnic groups. The numbers look shocking because everyone who marries and has kids is mostly having to make pretty big bucks these days in every state, of every ethnicity. The national median is driven down by the high number of single people living alone in this country.

That’s why I call it a marriage canyon, if you pull the numbers for single mothers and single fathers, and even cohabiters it’s night and day. I looked this stuff up for my own edification too. I have also been guilty of thinking that mostly families were earning at the national median level, but that hasn’t been true for at least a decade and probably longer.

I also made the tables to remind myself that larger families are super rare, because I have been told frequently that they are common as dirt and I wasn’t looking hard enough.

That’s very interesting and helpful.

 

[Xantippe]

I had lots of thoughts about this from when you shared it on the other thread. It makes perfect sense to me.

We generally start out motherhood/parenthood with one child. My husband and I were younger when we had one child, and our careers we’re relatively young. We put our first child full time daycare, which took a huge amount of the second paycheck, but we still came our financially ahead with two incomes.

By the time child #2 came along, I’d cut back to part time work. Daycare took a bigger piece of that second paycheck.

By the time child #3 came along, I stopped working altogether. The result was what this report showed–from child #1 to child #3, our income dropped. We lived on one income for many years.

Fast forward several years to child #7. We’re older. For the parent who worked outside the home, that translates to seniority and experience at work–and experience often brings more $. (If a child comes every 2 years, that would be 12 more years of experience that a working parent has by the time the seventh child comes along.) Plus, our oldest children are older. They don’t need daycare and may even help watch younger siblings. If one parent has been staying home, circumstances may make it desirable and possible for that parent to go back to work at least part time, which then increases the family income. The incentive for a parent who previously stayed home with the children to go back to work increases steadily as the children get older.

So quick summary: 1-2 children, more double incomes in this mix of parents. 3-7 children, more affordable for one parent to stay home than to pay for daycare. 7+ children, parents are older. At least some of the children are older, so between job experience for the parents who stayed in the work place and the opportunity/incentive for stay home parents to go back to work, the family income goes up for those with 7+ children.

I’m sure there’s more to it than just that, but that’s how I explain the income difference as it relates to family size.

That’s also very interesting–a very neat match to the table.

I suspect (based on the mismatch between the 39% making over $100k and the median of $61k) that the economic differences between different families with 8+ children are very stark. I expect that there is one group that follows the upward path you describe and then another group that sees their income flatline until the mother is able to return to work.

 

[Kelfa28]

Really??? I have 8 but don’t see many other posters here on CAF with that same number. or more Maybe you’re just reading my posts and a few others where we mention over and over and over that we have eight+ children.

I love it when you guys post. You, lifeisbeautiful, bitterhope, and I think it’s mary8 (or similar, I can’t remember her name) are the posters I see as my adult in the room.

I look at your posts and see hope and great advice.

I have two very close Church friends that are my real life adults in the room. One has 7 kids and the other has 8.

I don’t know how they do it…but they do it with grace and style. When I feel like I’m absolutely drowning…I see them and I smile and I keep going.

I love big families…I really do. I wanted one but I just know I can’t mentally handle anything more then I have.

 

[gardenswithkids]

I love it when you guys post. You, lifeisbeautiful, bitterhope, and I think it’s mary8 (or similar, I can’t remember her name) are the posters I see as my adult in the room.

I look at your posts and see hope and great advice.

I have two very close Church friends that are my real life adults in the room. One has 7 kids and the other has 8.

I don’t know how they do it…but they do it with grace and style. When I feel like I’m absolutely drowning…I see them and I smile and I keep going.

I love big families…I really do. I wanted one but I just know I can’t mentally handle anything more then I have.

Aw! Thanks. :hug1:

 

[EasterJoy]

This is true. There were times during our marriage when hubby and I couldn’t seem to even glance at each other without a pregnancy occurring - which made it difficult to be around two other couples we knew who were actively trying to conceive but either never did, or conceived once every five years. For those who were observing from the outside, it would have looked like we were completely lacking in all self control, while the others were “obviously” using birth control.

Hubby currently drives a 1997 car, while I drive a 2002 minivan. We’d probably have newer, more efficient vehicles except so far 4 of the 6 kids have needed braces - which totalled over $18,000 out of pocket over a few years. (Thankfully we still have a year or so before the next one needs them but the cost has gone up and will be around $5000 - aka a good chunk of a newer car.)

If we’d have had $100k+ income, we’d have probably had a couple more, but as it is/was cost made that impossible. As it is we struggle a great deal, both from costs and from dealing with debt that accumulated (very quickly) during periods of joblessness. There’s a lot of guilt placed on us by some that we didn’t “plan ahead” enough - to not have those last couple kids when we didn’t have a nest egg assembled in advanced. Now that they’re older there’s the guilt trip that we have no college savings for them - though two have made it through and we have our fingers crossed for the third one.

It’s something that I question at night - I couldn’t imagine a world without my younger blessings - but there’s so much stress and so much I cannot provide my older/middle kids because of the cost (loss of income plus actual costs) created by having the kids we did.

It really seems to me that the idea we always have complete control over either how many kids we have or how much income we make is a sham - though much of society seems to think we can control both. Instead we can only make the best judgements we can as life is actually happening, and the results - both good and bad are sometimes out of our control.

I can only guess what your income level would be if you had been paid every time you heard, “you know they know what causes that now, right?” That, and the “ahems” who talk as if to be unexpected is the same as being unwanted or that if you really want something or “really and truly accept it” then it cannot possibly be hard on you or anyone else. (If you didn’t have self-control, think of how many people you would have strangled by now! )

 

[MomaMary8]

Really??? I have 8 but don’t see many other posters here on CAF with that same number. or more Maybe you’re just reading my posts and a few others where we mention over and over and over that we have eight+ children.

I had lots of thoughts about this from when you shared it on the other thread. It makes perfect sense to me.

We generally start out motherhood/parenthood with one child. My husband and I were younger when we had one child, and our careers we’re relatively young. We put our first child full time daycare, which took a huge amount of the second paycheck, but we still came our financially ahead with two incomes.

By the time child #2 came along, I’d cut back to part time work. Daycare took a bigger piece of that second paycheck.

By the time child #3 came along, I stopped working altogether. The result was what this report showed–from child #1 to child #3, our income dropped. We lived on one income for many years.

Fast forward several years to child #7. We’re older. For the parent who worked outside the home, that translates to seniority and experience at work–and experience often brings more $. (If a child comes every 2 years, that would be 12 more years of experience that a working parent has by the time the seventh child comes along.) Plus, our oldest children are older. They don’t need daycare and may even help watch younger siblings. If one parent has been staying home, circumstances may make it desirable and possible for that parent to go back to work at least part time, which then increases the family income. The incentive for a parent who previously stayed home with the children to go back to work increases steadily as the children get older.

So quick summary: 1-2 children, more double incomes in this mix of parents. 3-7 children, more affordable for one parent to stay home than to pay for daycare. 7+ children, parents are older. At least some of the children are older, so between job experience for the parents who stayed in the work place and the opportunity/incentive for stay home parents to go back to work, the family income goes up for those with 7+ children.

I’m sure there’s more to it than just that, but that’s how I explain the income difference as it relates to family size.

This was my first thought as well. I know many who fit what you describe, gardens. We took a big dip in income at #7, so a bit off of the numbers. That was the time my dh started his business.

Who said something about being counter cultural? We are definitely living a counter cultural life

 

[jmjZelie]

I love it when you guys post. You, lifeisbeautiful, bitterhope, and I think it’s mary8 (or similar, I can’t remember her name) are the posters I see as my adult in the room.

I look at your posts and see hope and great advice.

I have two very close Church friends that are my real life adults in the room. One has 7 kids and the other has 8.

I don’t know how they do it…but they do it with grace and style. When I feel like I’m absolutely drowning…I see them and I smile and I keep going.

I love big families…I really do. I wanted one but I just know I can’t mentally handle anything more then I have.

I feel the same way about those CAF members. I feel like I pore over every detail of their posts, savoring the wisdom and peace found therein.

 

[Usige]

I was assuming that the older children are in school and that there are no daycare costs. So, mom’s $30k is mostly intact–after taxes, work clothes, commuting expenses, etc. So, yeah, we probably have lost about half of it. But even a net of $1,000 a month can be very appealing, depending on circumstances.

I tend to find the cost just shift. Instead of day care parents switch costs to sports, music or arts lessons, etc. Really the day care is replaced with the cost of some other structured activity. Heck even public schools in my area see to have $100+ in various fees every month or so. I was simply pointing out that often a significant portion of the earnings is eaten in additional costs related to working. Some also feel they need to work to justify their college student loans. My wife has friends that have been paying off student loans for the last 15 years despite the fact that they haven’t worked the last 10 years. They envy my wife for leaving college after the first semester since they “earn” the same, but she didn’t pay to acquire the same skills.

The weight of the opportunity cost is likely directly related to the earnings potential of the spouses. If you are giving up 30k and the household earnings potential is 80k it can make a huge difference. On the other hand if the earnings potential is 180k, the 30k only represents 1/6 of the total so the couple may chose to forgo the 30k. It also depends of a given couple’s tax situation. For my wife and I the wide difference between our earning potential has made it a so that we often owe taxes even when she claimed zero, single and additional withholding.

To be honest, most large families I know don’t think in terms of “how much do we lose” by one person not working. They see the gains of a large family to vastly outweigh a few extra perks. I grew up in the 70s and 80s as the youngest of 5 kids. My wife was an only child. Despite the fact that my family actual made less than hers, she said she would gladly have given up a new bike or nice cars for siblings.

Long and short, I would say economics is only part of the equation. Since I know dozens of people with 8, 10, 12 kids in every demographic (40k to 200k+) I can say they all share one common trait; they place their trust in God above everything else when discerning to have more children. And no, I’m not saying that people with fewer kids don’t, but rather that God tends to be more central to the conversation than “opportunity costs”.

 

[CradleJourney]

I can only guess what your income level would be if you had been paid every time you heard, “you know they know what causes that now, right?” That, and the “ahems” who talk as if to be unexpected is the same as being unwanted or that if you really want something or “really and truly accept it” then it cannot possibly be hard on you or anyone else. (If you didn’t have self-control, think of how many people you would have strangled by now! )

Thanks for the laugh!

Yeah, we’ve heard just about everything over the years

 

[Usige]

I can only guess what your income level would be if you had been paid every time you heard, “you know they know what causes that now, right?” That, and the “ahems” who talk as if to be unexpected is the same as being unwanted or that if you really want something or “really and truly accept it” then it cannot possibly be hard on you or anyone else. (If you didn’t have self-control, think of how many people you would have strangled by now! )

I remember one of the families we know where her husband was talking about his 6 daughters. One of his co-workers said it was too bad they tried so hard for a boy and never got one. He smiled and said, “nope, we’ve got 5 of those too.” The co-worker acted like he had gone from having two heads to being some other creature entirely.

The good things is after about 6 kids, people figure out they aren’t going to “educate” you about what you did wrong. They come to the realization you might actually have meant to have that many kids. One of our friends congratulated us on going from the Brady Bunch to the Von Trapp family. We are waiting to see if either of us become the Bradfords.

 

[ThePCWife]

I tend to find the cost just shift. Instead of day care parents switch costs to sports, music or arts lessons, etc. Really the day care is replaced with the cost of some other structured activity. Heck even public schools in my area see to have $100+ in various fees every month or so. I was simply pointing out that often a significant portion of the earnings is eaten in additional costs related to working. Some also feel they need to work to justify their college student loans. My wife has friends that have been paying off student loans for the last 15 years despite the fact that they haven’t worked the last 10 years. They envy my wife for leaving college after the first semester since they “earn” the same, but she didn’t pay to acquire the same skills.

The weight of the opportunity cost is likely directly related to the earnings potential of the spouses. If you are giving up 30k and the household earnings potential is 80k it can make a huge difference. On the other hand if the earnings potential is 180k, the 30k only represents 1/6 of the total so the couple may chose to forgo the 30k. It also depends of a given couple’s tax situation. For my wife and I the wide difference between our earning potential has made it a so that we often owe taxes even when she claimed zero, single and additional withholding.

To be honest, most large families I know don’t think in terms of “how much do we lose” by one person not working. They see the gains of a large family to vastly outweigh a few extra perks. I grew up in the 70s and 80s as the youngest of 5 kids. My wife was an only child. Despite the fact that my family actual made less than hers, she said she would gladly have given up a new bike or nice cars for siblings.

Long and short, I would say economics is only part of the equation. Since I know dozens of people with 8, 10, 12 kids in every demographic (40k to 200k+) I can say they all share one common trait; they place their trust in God above everything else when discerning to have more children. And no, I’m not saying that people with fewer kids don’t, but rather that God tends to be more central to the conversation than “opportunity costs”.

Ok, see, this kind of little tag-end is why those of us without 12 kids end up getting gnawed at by the demon of scrupulosity. “Opportunity costs” are not a typical reason many people don’t have 12 kids, or 8, or whatever. Why, yes, I do resent the implication that I’ve failed to put God centrally enough in the conversation because I don’t have 12 kids. This sort of attitude is what puts performance pressure on women to keep trying for one more child (even if it would kill them or leave them unable to care for themselves or their children including the new infant for years on end) just to stop feeling like they aren’t trusting God enough because their family is “too small, clearly only people with more kids than fingers are trusting sufficiently!”

/vent.

 

[Xantippe]

I tend to find the cost just shift. Instead of day care parents switch costs to sports, music or arts lessons, etc. Really the day care is replaced with the cost of some other structured activity. Heck even public schools in my area see to have $100+ in various fees every month or so. I was simply pointing out that often a significant portion of the earnings is eaten in additional costs related to working. Some also feel they need to work to justify their college student loans. My wife has friends that have been paying off student loans for the last 15 years despite the fact that they haven’t worked the last 10 years. They envy my wife for leaving college after the first semester since they “earn” the same, but she didn’t pay to acquire the same skills.

The weight of the opportunity cost is likely directly related to the earnings potential of the spouses. If you are giving up 30k and the household earnings potential is 80k it can make a huge difference. On the other hand if the earnings potential is 180k, the 30k only represents 1/6 of the total so the couple may chose to forgo the 30k. It also depends of a given couple’s tax situation. For my wife and I the wide difference between our earning potential has made it a so that we often owe taxes even when she claimed zero, single and additional withholding.

To be honest, most large families I know don’t think in terms of “how much do we lose” by one person not working. They see the gains of a large family to vastly outweigh a few extra perks. I grew up in the 70s and 80s as the youngest of 5 kids. My wife was an only child. Despite the fact that my family actual made less than hers, she said she would gladly have given up a new bike or nice cars for siblings.

Long and short, I would say economics is only part of the equation. Since I know dozens of people with 8, 10, 12 kids in every demographic (40k to 200k+) I can say they all share one common trait; they place their trust in God above everything else when discerning to have more children. And no, I’m not saying that people with fewer kids don’t, but rather that God tends to be more central to the conversation than “opportunity costs”.

1. I don’t agree completely about cost-shifting between daycare and activities. If we’re talking about summer camps, certainly (for working parents, summer camp is often just big kid daycare), but it’s less clear during the normal school year. SAHP families also do after-school activities during the school year. In fact, at least time-wise, SAHP families have a much greater ability to go nuts over activities. It’s stereotypically the working parents that cry into their lattes over having to miss the big recital or the big game because of work obligations and being able to be more present to children for their activities is one of the draws of the SAHP lifestyle in the contemporary US.

I’m an SAHM and we had several weeks this past summer where the whole family all went a little nuts over my daughter’s cake decorating course. There’s no way we could have done it with two 9-5 working parents. It was insane how much work we had to do just collecting and prepping the stuff she needed for class, getting her there, getting her back, and then supervising the cleaning-up process. But, just a few hours of instruction have made a huge difference in her decorating skills and she did an adorably frosted Nemo cake for her baby sister’s third birthday. Likewise, she’s been doing music lessons for about a year and a half now, and if I were employed, I know I would have a lot less time and energy to put into her music.

1. I think you’re right about opportunity costs.
2. I think your wife’s feelings about having a sibling are common among only children. Less common among adults with siblings, though. I grew up with two younger siblings (a brother and a sister) and I didn’t feel any lack. However, I’ve never asked my brother, but it must have been different for him, as he both had no brother and eventually had no siblings at home. But somebody has to be the youngest…