What is the Church's current expectation for number of children?

[Chum]

19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Large families were a benefit in a more agrarian economy where children were a net economic benefit. Large families were economically tolerable in the New Deal/Post-WWII Economic Boom. That toleration is being steadily eroded.

Seriously, our setup is the most workable one I know. Four+ typical incomes have the best shot at affording a home for that many income earners. Mini-mansions excluded. Especially when you factor in expenses like minimal insurance policies that (together) can far exceed rent amounts.

recap: The way for a 20s-30s adult child to support themselves is with the income of 3 siblings.

Edited August 30, 2022 by Chum

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, Chum said:

Seriously, our setup is the most workable one I know. Four+ typical incomes have the best shot at affording a home for that many income earners. Mini-mansions excluded. Especially when you factor in expenses like minimal insurance policies that (together) can far exceed rent amounts.

I agree but when I tried to set up the perfect bisexual polycule with myself and a husband and two wives who are all married to each other my bishop said that was a sin too.

Le sigh.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

Seguing off of this: Since the death of the multi generational households of a century+ ago, I don't see how a non-fortunate couple can independently sustain themselves in a 3 income economy.

That doesn't mean I'm saying don't get married. I'm saying I don't see a path for that couple to independently support themselves.

I earn a modest single income as an RN.  My wife has been a stay at home mother to our 2 children since they were born.   We didn't have any saving going into our marriage.  We haven't received any inheritance, and yet we live quite comfortably on my one income in a nice neighborhood in Draper with good schools.  We don't live paycheck to paycheck and have been able to create an emergency fund that will cover us for 6 months if needed, and we put away 15% towards retirement.  We are pretty comfortable even with inflation.  We have zero debt, except for our mortgage.  We save and pay for everything up-front.     

We also got into the housing market right before the boom and subsequent interest rates hike.  That is the only way we are surviving.  I fear for our children.  Utah, at least, doesn't seem viable for most in the rising generation.  If the market continues to trend downward for a long time, they should be ok.  If not, we may be moving to a developing country at some point to live with them.  Belize anyone?  Costa Rica?  @Navidad might like some company down in Mexico. 

Edited August 30, 2022 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, blackstrap said:

I always thought the standard was similar to what the Montana speed limit used to be ., reasonable and prudent. 😊

I hope that means that 75 is unreasonable 

[Calm]

That would be interesting to see, a significant number of Americans transplanting to other countries where cost of living was lower.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I hope that means that 75 is unreasonable 

Not according to my husband.

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not according to my husband.

That one needs more emojis but I'm not quite sure which ones

🤔🤣🤯😡😱😳😳😳

75 is a lot of kids.

😜🧐😶

Edited August 30, 2022 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

50 minutes ago, pogi said:

I earn a modest single income as an RN.  My wife has been a stay at home mother to our 2 children since they were born.   We didn't have any saving going into our marriage.  We haven't received any inheritance, and yet we live quite comfortably on my one income in a nice neighborhood in Draper with good schools.  We don't live paycheck to paycheck and have been able to create an emergency fund that will cover us for 6 months if needed, and we put away 15% towards retirement.  We are pretty comfortable even with inflation.  We have zero debt, except for our mortgage.  We save and pay for everything up-front.     

We also got into the housing market right before the boom and subsequent interest rates hike.  That is the only way we are surviving.  I fear for our children.  Utah, at least, doesn't seem viable for most in the rising generation.  If the market continues to trend downward for a long time, they should be ok.  If not, we may be moving to a developing country at some point to live with them.  Belize anyone?  Costa Rica?  @Navidad might like some company down in Mexico. 

I've been through at least 3 major real estate crashes in my 40 years in the biz, and they always have come after massive inflation

Don't worry.

In the early 80's it was so bad you had to swap your condo as a downpayment on a bigger house, and you wrote an IOU to the house owner for the balance at a reasonable rate because bank rates WERE 20 % !!  Look it up!

We prayed they would get down to 10%!  For a while I got into both the real estate and used car business, because I would take used cars as commissions!  

Creative financing. !

Get ready.

Edited August 30, 2022 by mfbukowski

[blackstrap]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

75 is unreasonable 

A friend of a friend got a ticket years ago in MT. He was doing 125 mph in a rain storm. Apparently that was deemed unreasonable .

As for 75 kids, iirc the current record is 69 kids held by some Russian lady. 27 pregnancies. YIKES !

Edited August 30, 2022 by blackstrap

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

That one needs more emojis but I'm not quite sure which ones

🤔🤣🤯😡😱😳😳😳

75 is a lot of kids.

😜🧐😶

What can I say. I latched on to the wrong part of the sentence of the first comment and so misread your comment. 
 

Actually my husband said he wanted 12 on our first date. He doesn’t remember that, so my guess is he was joking. Sometimes it is hard to tell. He is happy with the two, but if circumstances were different with my health I think four would have been our choice. 
 

 

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

What can I say. I latched on to the wrong part of the sentence of the first comment and so misread your comment. 
 

Actually my husband said he wanted 12 on our first date. He doesn’t remember that, so my guess is he was joking. Sometimes it is hard to tell. He is happy with the two, but if circumstances were different with my health I think four would have been our choice. 
 

 

My wife said she wanted 8, and I thought 5 was plenty. We have 6, 3 sons and 3 daughters. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

What can I say. I latched on to the wrong part of the sentence of the first comment and so misread your comment. 
 

Actually my husband said he wanted 12 on our first date. He doesn’t remember that, so my guess is he was joking. Sometimes it is hard to tell. He is happy with the two, but if circumstances were different with my health I think four would have been our choice. 
 

 

We have four and 4 grandkids, with poor prospects for more

But of course my comment was meant to be tricky, so it's not surprising that it was!

 

[Chum]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

The stats about "square footage of living space per person" are interesting to me, they having increased "from 507 to 971 square feet using the median size house, and from 551 to 1,058 square feet using the average size house."

Based on everywhere I've been, ever: I'd bet confederate dollars that mini-mansions are sharply skewing up those numbers. I'd like to see the same stats, with that bit of unobtainable housing removed from the pile.

Edited August 30, 2022 by Chum

[pogi]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

That one needs more emojis but I'm not quite sure which ones

🤔🤣🤯😡😱😳😳😳

75 is a lot of kids.

😜🧐😶

The GA's in the 1860's were averaging 40 kids!  40 KIDS!!!  Though they probably had about as many wives...  That is a lot of mouths to feed though.  It would be really interesting to research the conditions these children lived in.  Mothers weren't working.  I can't imagine how they all managed. 

[blackstrap]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

I can't imagine how they all managed.

Probably because the kids didn't all need a $1000 phone and $ 300 sneakers. 

[CV75]

4 hours ago, Chum said:

Are we still expected to produce as many children as we guess we can well care for? I'm not really sure any more. I know the last few years have reprioritized the Church's messaging but I think it's been a decade since I last heard instruction specific messaging about family size.

I'm asking because the reality of living is (still) quickly changing for us first worlders. When I joined (1993), non-fortunate people could still work and save on a couple of incomes. A decade ago, I'd peg it at 3 incomes. Now I'd peg the range at 3 -5, with housing being the primary driver of the latest uptick.

When one factors in the cost of college, the decreasing likelihood that a degree can pay itself, the decreasing ability to afford family-sized housing (inc ins) and increasing costs of minimal living - it's becoming difficult to identify anything that isn't out of reach, for most of the population.

Given the above, I'm not clear on:

1) What the Church sees as a reasonable path to sustain a larger families and

2) What is the path the Church sees for those kids in their 20s and 30s.

Our workable path is to beat out many families for the extremely rare, available, non-mansion 5 bedroom and (with all our incomes) live above a survival state. For those families we beat out, I'm not sure there is any path. What might the Church think?

I understand that men can have as many children as women.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I've been through at least 3 major real estate crashes in my 40 years in the biz, and they always have come after massive inflation

Don't worry.

In the early 80's it was so bad you had to swap your condo as a downpayment on a bigger house, and you wrote an IOU to the house owner for the balance at a reasonable rate because bank rates WERE 20 % !!  Look it up!

We prayed they would get down to 10%!  For a while I got into both the real estate and used car business, because I would take used cars as commissions!  

Creative financing. !

Get ready.

I have to say, the overall trend since the 1960's is not too comforting. 

 I am pretty sure that we are at the peak of a second major dip in average real estate prices since the 1960's, but how far will it drop?  That is going to hose a lot of people.   Even with the dip though, unless we get down to where we were in 2010, rising interest rates are going to offset any potential savings in home prices.  If it does drop that far, there are going to be countless people under water in their mortgage.   I don't see any hope for the rising generation in the near future.  

I bought my first home in Midvale in 2014 for $180K, fixed it up and sold it 5 years later for 389K, bought my next home in Draper for $1K more at $390 with an interest rate under 3%!  3 years later, comps in my neighborhood are at $650K.  That is INSANE!!!  That is with interest rates at near 7%!!!  

Newly weds looking to buy a home are absolutely hosed right now.  Who knows how many generations before this all works itself out, but I don't see any light/hope in the near future.  And unfortunately, the only solution means that too many Americans are going to be underwater in their mortgage.  Hold on folks, I think we are in for a wild ride!  Plant your garden.  Get your food storage.  Dig your bunker 

From $180k to $650k in 8 years!  I don’t see that kind of correction ever happening.  I could barely afford my home at $189!  No way will anyone be able to do what I have done (own a good home as a single income nurse)…possibly ever again.

Edited August 30, 2022 by pogi

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

I earn a modest single income as an RN.  My wife has been a stay at home mother to our 2 children since they were born.   We didn't have any saving going into our marriage.  We haven't received any inheritance, and yet we live quite comfortably on my one income in a nice neighborhood in Draper with good schools.  We don't live paycheck to paycheck and have been able to create an emergency fund that will cover us for 6 months if needed, and we put away 15% towards retirement.  We are pretty comfortable even with inflation.  We have zero debt, except for our mortgage.  We save and pay for everything up-front.     

We also got into the housing market right before the boom and subsequent interest rates hike.  That is the only way we are surviving.  I fear for our children.  Utah, at least, doesn't seem viable for most in the rising generation.  If the market continues to trend downward for a long time, they should be ok.  If not, we may be moving to a developing country at some point to live with them.  Belize anyone?  Costa Rica?  @Navidad might like some company down in Mexico. 

Come on down!

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

Based on everywhere I've been, ever: I'd bet confederate dollars that mini-mansions are sharply skewing up those numbers. I'd like to see the same stats, with that bit of unobtainable housing removed from the pile.

One of my favorite YouTube guys is Kerry Tarnow, who keeps tabs on developments in prefabricated / manufactured / modular housing industry.  He is suggesting that we may be on the cusp of a pretty serious disruption in housing.  Take a look:

 

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

The GA's in the 1860's were averaging 40 kids!  40 KIDS!!!  Though they probably had about as many wives...  That is a lot of mouths to feed though.  It would be really interesting to research the conditions these children lived in.  Mothers weren't working.  I can't imagine how they all managed. 

Well they were mostly farmers and grew their own food, the kids worked on the farm.

You read the OT and it's clear that wealth was seen in family size, how many animals they had; housing was largely inherited and all generations lived together

Little "cash" was needed

There are cultures that still live similarly

Joy in in living with your in laws!

How could life be better?

😱😰

Edited August 31, 2022 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Error 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Mothers weren't working. 

Uh, they kind of were I think!

😏

 

[Raingirl]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

The GA's in the 1860's were averaging 40 kids!  40 KIDS!!!  Though they probably had about as many wives...  That is a lot of mouths to feed though.  It would be really interesting to research the conditions these children lived in.  Mothers weren't working.  I can't imagine how they all managed. 

Nick Cannon seems to be working on matching those numbers. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, blackstrap said:

Probably because the kids didn't all need a $1000 phone and $ 300 sneakers. 

It was more that the 40 kids were 40 part-time (at least) workers that you only had to feed and not pay.

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Uh, they kind of were I think!

😏

 

Thank you, you got to it before I did, lol.