Strollerderby

Four Reasons Big Families Might Have it Better in This Economy

Posted by JeanneSager

If it costs more to feed a bigger family in good times, doesn't it stand to reason that it would cost more in lean times too? Yes, but it's possible bigger families are better prepared for hard times - because they're used to living on a stricter budget. 

Talking with the Chicago Tribune, Don Demaree of the Center for Consumer Credit Counseling says some (not all, he's quick to add) of the larger families have cottoned on long ago to frugality - be it by buying in bulk or finding free entertainment for the family. 

So what else do the big families have on those of us with just one or two kids? 

1. When they buy in bulk, the family actually uses it all. Some things never expire - we bought all our diapers at Sam's Club. But those blocks of government cheese are likely to turn hard before we plow through them in a house of just three, and a giant bag of chips goes stale before we're down to the crumbs - and there goes our money, down the drain.

2. Built-in entertainment. My grandmother once told me parenting seven was easier than parenting one because there was always someone else for the kids to play with or at least someone else to keep them out of her hair. Which leads me to . . . 

3. Built-in babysitters. In big families where the ages range (this obviously won't work for those octuplets!), there's less of a need to hire a babysitter if a parent has to get a second job or Mom has to go back to work. 

4. Hand-me-downs. Most of us still have to go out and buy clothes for our kids. Big families do too - but they get a lot more use out of them than the rest of us. 

Of course all families have it tough right now. Having a big family might well be harder - because when the breadwinner loses a job, there are a lot more mouths who depended on that bread. But with all the bad news, it's nice to have a little good.

Image: BigFamilies.ca

Related Posts:

"Free" Lunches Cost School 200 Grand

Georgia Family Has Everything They Own Up on eBay

No Great Outpouring of Support for Struggling New Mom of Quintuplets

Reports: Mom of Surprise Octuplets Already Had 6 Kids

Report Finds Individualistic Culture Harms Kids—Because It Leads to Working Moms

Pulling the Plug on Plural Pregnancies

 


+ DIGG + STUMBLE

Comments

 

Sue said:

Thank you for this positive article! We've learned more being a large family (14 kids, only 10 left at home) than I could any other way. I agree with your grandmother.

February 3, 2009 6:09 PM
 

Sheri said:

Just because you have a ton of kids, and they CAN babysit doesn't mean you SHOULD have them babysit all the time.  

I only have 3 kids, but one is 13 years older than the next oldest.  I had people mention the built-in babysitter all the time.  

I didn't have the other two just so my oldest son could babysit.  He does watch them from time to time, but I pay him the same rate as everyone else, and I ask.  And yes, there have been times when he told me he had to do something--not often, but it has happened.

February 3, 2009 7:44 PM
 

Sam said:

"Just because you have a ton of kids, and they CAN babysit doesn't mean you SHOULD have them babysit all the time."

Right, but it seems like taking care of each other is what you do when you are part of a family. I know my older brother was never paid to babysit me, I can't think of any kids in my neighborhood who got paid to babysit their brothers or sisters; staying home with them was just something you did when your parents went out of afterschool. It makes sense to me that people would think "oh, built in babysitter, nice" no one is saying that you are enslaving your son, but you are a family, and that just means that you take care of each other. I think when you have 5, or 10, or 14 kids, having them take care of each other is what you do. How can you possibly afford a sitter for 14 kids and go out? I don't think that when I used to babysit I would have up for babysitting 14 kids, some of which would have probably been older than me!

February 3, 2009 8:36 PM
 

SE said:

My grandparents came from huge dairy farm families, typical of the time. In my grandmother's family, the older children were each assigned to "mind" a specific toddler (during non-school hours). Meanwhile, my great grandmother took care of the newest baby and ran the house and chicken business.

Even in old age, my grandmother was very close to the brother she had raised. When he came home after fighting in WWII, he lived with my mom's family for about a year while he got back on his feet. He is still my mom's favorite uncle.

I don't see anything wrong with this sort of system for large families. I suspect it was once the norm, in fact. And I like how my great grandmother paired up the kids and gave real responsibility to the older ones. She sounds like a smart cookie to me.

February 4, 2009 9:26 AM
 

Laure68 said:

I have to make a comment on the babysitting thing. When I was growing up, one of my best friends was the oldest of 10. When we were 14, the youngest was born, so there were 10 kids within 14 years. She was expected to help out with the younger kids all the time. She could never go out and do stuff with the rest of us. She also had a very hard time keeping up in school. (She was very smart, but had no time for homework.)

If you are asking your older kids to babysit once in a while, I don't see a problem with that. But I do think it is a problem to ask them to do it on a regular basis.

February 4, 2009 10:47 AM
 

Jennifer said:

I have to admit that I hate the whole "built-in-babysitter" line... but maybe that's just from my personal experience. I was the oldest of 4 children and starting at age 11, I started being left "in charge" of my younger siblings (for significant amounts of time... during the summer, it was basically 8-9 hours a day, 5 days a week). By the time I was 15, I almost had a nervous breakdown from all the stress. My relationship with my siblings was strained (and to a certain extent, still is today), since it tended to become a me against them (and them against me) mentality. I became very bossy, and yelled a lot, trying to keep them in line, even when my parents were around (because it was hard to turn off the "parent" I was supposed to be when our parents weren't around, and become just one of the kids again, when they were around). I even started suffering from sleep disorders... I was basically a mess until we all got to the age that, I was going off on my own and my siblings were old enough to watch themselves. Plus, even though nothing really bad happened, it could have... while I might have seemed more responsible than the average 11 year old, looking back, I definitely wasn't responsible enough at that time to keep both myself and all those children safe. We were just plain old lucky that nothing really bad happened....

Not to say that, once they reach a certain age, you can't leave your children home alone for short periods of time here and there... but, it's simply unfair to your children (all of your children, least of all your first-born), to make your first-born do your job for you....

February 4, 2009 10:58 AM
 

SE said:

I think what seems reasonable about my great grandparents' system is that the older kids (boys, too) were each responsible for supervising ONE younger kid. The oldest one/s didn't get saddled with all of the kids at once. They all had chores on the farm, too, and the little kids were taught to stick with their minders until they were big enough to do chores independently.

This whole system, of course, was based on a family economy where Mom and Dad were both around the farm most of the time--not leaving the kids entirely alone to fend for themselves.

February 4, 2009 11:15 AM
 

JeanneSager said:

To be honest, I was one of those kids who was stuck watching her younger sibling constantly. I know how much of a burden it can be on older kids from experience. And I think parents need to be cognizant when they decide to have more kids that the older kids are NOT the parents, they shouldn't be punished because their parents decided to have more children.

So I wouldn't recommend it as a rule, but in tight economic times, I do think every member of the family has a responsibility to pitch in. For that matter, I think every kid should have chores in good economic times. And that includes babysitting - without pay - in exchange for the privileges like going out and having fun.

February 4, 2009 11:26 AM
 

gpgirl said:

When people talk about older kids taking care of younger ones on a farm long ago, you have to realize times are different today. Now, people really need to do well in school and go to college to be comfortable in life. Making your older kids take care of younger ones, keep up with school, and still have a little fun seems very difficult.

Also, I don't really get the whole built-in babysitter argument. If you stopped at 1 or 2 kids, by the time they are babysitting age you could just let them stay at home by themselves. Why is it an advantage to have more kids so these older ones can babysit them?

Only #3 (built-in entertainment) seems like an actual advantage. All the other just say, at best, you won't be doing/spending much more than if you only had a couple of kids.

February 4, 2009 11:54 AM
 

Sukey said:

I can assure you that- as the youngest on the totem pole - paying (and screening) babysitters to watch your kids is money well spent!  I always got into more trouble when my brother and/or older cousins were watching me...and that includes a couple swell trips to the emergency room.  One time we spent the whole day in the pool and no one ever thought to put on sun block or eat lunch...eventually I ended-up with a sunburn and then experienced passing out for the first time. The 70s were great.  Also, my brother's friends would inevitably show-up as soon as my parents left...and they would all ignore me, and that was a good case scenario because, guess what, it's the older sibling's friends that usually introduce you to all the bad stuff.  People don't live on dairy farms anymore - hire a babysitter – the bigger nerd, the better.  

February 4, 2009 12:05 PM
 

Manjari said:

Good point gpgirl, built in babysitting is not an advantage of having bigger families. It might actually be a disadvantage to the older kids (depending on how often, for how long, how many siblings, etc.).

February 4, 2009 12:40 PM

About JeanneSager

Jeanne Sager is a writer who lives in upstate New York with her husband, daughter, a dog and too many cats. She refuses to believe motherhood comes with pumpkin appliqued sweaters, and she';s not ready to apologize for having only one child. She writes about raising her kid in her own hometown and the mom stuff she's not embarrassed to own at her blog, Inside Out (http://jeannesager.blogspot.com), she's contributing editor of Grand Magazine, and she's a regular essayist here on Babble

in

GROUP BLOGS

  • Strollerderby

    The smartest, funniest, most exhaustive parenting blog in the blogosphere.
  • Droolicious

    Modern design for modern parents.
  • FameCrawler

    Your daily baby celebrity fix.
back to blog homepage