on the matter of d.i.n.k.
 

I imagine a few couples here fit into that category

What with the cost of living, and the cost of raising children (including university), plus not being guaranteed a job at some point in ones life, does the option of forgoing kids altogether make sense to you?

Plus not everybody wants to be a parent even if the money is relatively plentiful

comments?

Re: on the matter of d.i.n.k.
 

It would be a shame if anyone who actually wanted kids, abstained due to monetary reasons. I think that could be put down to priorities more than anything else. Though I understand perfectly that some don't want kids or don't have the opportunity.

Re: on the matter of d.i.n.k.
 

I've known people who thought they didn't want kids, until kids came along.

Equally, the converse is true too. :rofl:

Re: on the matter of d.i.n.k.
 

Tricky one.

I know couples that simply don't want kids. I know others that do want them but can't. I know others that have them and wish they didn't. Another category is people that wish people they know or are related to didn't have kids.

Re: on the matter of d.i.n.k.
 

I'm leaning towards 1 kid so that resources can be best apportioned.

Re: on the matter of d.i.n.k.
 

Honest opinion - that's the worst option. Lots of people will disagree, but personally, I think kids do best with siblings.

Re: on the matter of d.i.n.k.
 

I agree.

Re: on the matter of d.i.n.k.
 

I agree, and close together too.

Re: on the matter of d.i.n.k.
 

Absolutely - we've got three, age 10, 7 and 3 and you can see each attaining certain levels of development - language, play, comprehension, cheek etc earlier than the older one. That aside, its way more fun with three, they've got more to occupy themselves; means you get more tax credits and you can bundle them all off into the garden to play together to get peace to have a few drinks - which ironically is how the first one arrived...

Re: on the matter of d.i.n.k.
 

You haven't met my siblings..............

Re: on the matter of d.i.n.k.
 

We always planned to have kids but it took 5 years or so for our first to be born. We had become philosophical about whether it would happen and resigned our selves to being DINK's and being able to travel, eat out etc etc. Once we had one, that all seems like a dim distant memory of another life, which I 'spose it was.

Having had one small person, it seemed the right thing to do to have a second, although again, we were philosophical only having one and that would be fine. When we had two we were over the moon, but at that point we decided that two was very much enough for us. The Mrs almost dying from complications after a C-section played a part in that as did my age. (43 at that point). Having had the snip, we're sticking with two and when we spend time with friends who have three kids, it all seems exponentially noisier and more chaotic than having two.;)

Financially of course, we regard disposable income as a dim and distant memory & have accepted the fact that childcare is now our single largest expense above and beyond mortgage and car payments.;) And look forward to the time when both kids are in school!

Re: on the matter of d.i.n.k.
 

We never planned to have children and now never will.
We are both very happy with this situation.

Money had very little to do with it. I have never had any desire to breed, unlike most females in my family who breed young, often and with whoever happens to be around.

Re: on the matter of d.i.n.k.
 

we have two - first when we (wife & I born the same year) were 30, second one at 39 (or was that 40

For us it seemed to all work out

Re: on the matter of d.i.n.k.
 

+1. I think it's tough on the child if they don't have a sibling, but even tougher on the parents. All the parents of only children I know have to work far harder than I do with my two, who will happily play together all day with no input from me whatsoever. Although it would be nice to be needed more sometimes........:lol:

IMO, kids don't need 'resources that are best apportioned', they need somebody to make mud pies with, to catch them if they fall when climbing a tree, to be their opposition for a board game, to play mums and dads with etc.

Re: on the matter of d.i.n.k.
 

IMO, siblings or not, children seem to grow up fairly well if the parents have decent jobs and aren't knob-heads.

Re: on the matter of d.i.n.k.
 

:goodpost:

Re: on the matter of d.i.n.k.
 

But if they're knob heads then a sibling is essential, right? :D

Re: on the matter of d.i.n.k.
 

I have gone through a fortune in child related expenses, way over a million dollars Canadian. (It would have been even more if I hadn't lost their winter coat money playing pool). The only way I can rationalise this expenditure is to think that without the drive of having to feed the children I wouldn't have made the effort to bring in the cash in the first place.

Re: on the matter of d.i.n.k.
 

depends a lot on many factors - ones personal own upbringing, your own life & career and/or whether you want to raise your children unselfishly with silver spoons in their mouths.

We put both ours through Uni on a 50/50 shared basis & they had to work for it.

today in their 20's & 30's, do we consider them responsible upright citizens relative to the world around them - I'm giving them a grade mark of 8/10.

Re: on the matter of d.i.n.k.
 

My mother became a war widow just after my birth so I never had siblings nor met my father for that matter. Over the years I've observed other siblings in various situations and both envied them and been thankful I didn't have any. My dear mother tried and worked so hard to ensure I had everything I wanted/needed and it's now that I realize what a wonderful person she was and how hard was her life.
Being an only child was, for me, a lonely life and I wouldn't recommend that anyone deliberately have only one child. I have many friends of both genders but, for me, the existence of brothers/sisters to whom I can talk with in confidence would round out the happy existence I presently experience.

Re: on the matter of d.i.n.k.
 

You have us. :)

Re: on the matter of d.i.n.k.
 

Me too;)

Re: on the matter of d.i.n.k.
 

Funny how things work out , I have a sister who I barely converse with, despite having shared a bedroom with her for the first 16 years of my life.

My brother I do miss though , a lot. We had great fun together but even if I lived back in the UK I'd probably still only get to see him about as much as I do living here.

At least in Canada I get him to myself for a week.

Re: on the matter of d.i.n.k.
 

We don't have children and i never really felt that we missed out but now when my friends have grandchildren around i wouldn't mind some of those.

Plus i worry about who will chose my care home and make sure that my chin hair is removed.

Re: on the matter of d.i.n.k.
 

The great difference between kids and grandkids is the ability to give the latter back after a short while! ;)

Re: on the matter of d.i.n.k.
 

If you want to make a career change, then you can always go work the tills at Walmart. Nearly every woman there has some form of chin hair. Some bordering on beards. That might take away some stress for you in the future

Re: on the matter of d.i.n.k.
 

Why what a thoughtful suggestion but iwas more concerned about when i am too doolally even for Walmart.

Re: on the matter of d.i.n.k.
 

Is that possible?

Walmart greeter, perhaps, or some form of retail banking customer service?

Re: on the matter of d.i.n.k.
 

Oh, i could walk round with a clipboard all day? I could do that. What if i got the chin hairs caught in the bulldog clip tho? That's a worry.

Re: on the matter of d.i.n.k.
 

Bulldog clips?

That probably rules me out in any job involving a clipboard.

Re: on the matter of d.i.n.k.
 

It's good to know your limitations