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?

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.

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

Equally, the converse is true too.

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.

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

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

I agree.

I agree, and close together too.

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...

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

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!

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.

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

+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........

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.

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