I guess it is if you have them all privately educated and take them skiing every year and the like. Less so if they all go to the local comp, only wear hand me downs and your annual holiday is a week in a static caravan up north.
I'm one of five and whilst both parents had what most people would regard as a very substantial joint income, money if not tight was treated with utmost care. Father relied on bonuses and profit share, which were very spiky indeed.
"Miserable naysayers tell me that my grandchildren will have to exist in an overpopulated, drought and flood-ridden hellhole, but I prefer not to think about that."
I'm one of five and whilst both parents had what most people would regard as a very substantial joint income, money if not tight was treated with utmost care. Father relied on bonuses and profit share, which were very spiky indeed.
Yes, well, a century or so ago people had large families because infant mortality was much higher. So those that survived to teens or beyond skewed the perception. Middle classes weren’t immune to diseases etc. That aside, people with large families have to pay for them and may live to experience some “feedback” from those in the brood who get less attention. That said again, people from large families often have large families themselves. Go figure.
I have 5 as we know and I am very lucky to have them all. The school fees (and full time childcare - we both worked full time) is the biggest expense. The twins fit in the boot of the volvo when we wnt out as a 7 (rear facing seats) and I didn't see the car as the biggest issue. As mentinoed above holidays are more expensive partiuclarly for things like skiing rahter than just renting a villa.
They also have to share more but that is no bad thing.
I know outing is not cool but if anyone has ever wondered what 3 bikes (or boxes as they are on this browser) looks like and thinks makes you middle class
0
0
I guess it is if you have them all privately educated and take them skiing every year and the like. Less so if they all go to the local comp, only wear hand me downs and your annual holiday is a week in a static caravan up north.
0
0
Yes. Next.
0
0
I'm one of five and whilst both parents had what most people would regard as a very substantial joint income, money if not tight was treated with utmost care. Father relied on bonuses and profit share, which were very spiky indeed.
0
0
five? FIVE?
that's insane
0
0
What Summer Sails said.
0
0
The daily mash: https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/features/why-having-five-children-is-fine-for-middle-class-people-like-me-but-not-the-poor-20190109181123
0
0
Nice Peep Show ref, Clubbers.
0
0
HEH! Well, quite.
0
0
I'm one of five and whilst both parents had what most people would regard as a very substantial joint income, money if not tight was treated with utmost care. Father relied on bonuses and profit share, which were very spiky indeed.
That must have been awful for you.
0
0
Clubers not as bad at first blush as it seems, there are twins in that group. I am sure we weren't all planned, of that I am certain.
0
0
Bentines, no it wasn't.
0
0
I think it would be great to have 5 and it wasn't long ago this was fairly normal. My paternal grandparents had 18 siblings between them.
0
0
Yes, well, a century or so ago people had large families because infant mortality was much higher. So those that survived to teens or beyond skewed the perception. Middle classes weren’t immune to diseases etc. That aside, people with large families have to pay for them and may live to experience some “feedback” from those in the brood who get less attention. That said again, people from large families often have large families themselves. Go figure.
0
0
That aside, people with large families have to pay for them and may live to experience some “feedback” from those in the brood who get less attention.
True but with that many you can afford to ignore the odd black sheep.
0
0
Not great news for the sheep, is it?
0
0
Every sperm is sacred....
0
0
Heh
0
0
Its not the number. It's having them by the same mother & father.
0
0
It means you're poor(er) and catholic where I'm from
0
0
give it 6 months and you'll be calling that normal
0
0
Presumably it's a sign that you don't own a massive Tele (otherwise you'd be watching that rather than having sex).
So, yeah definitely a middle class status symbol.
0
0
I have 5 as we know and I am very lucky to have them all. The school fees (and full time childcare - we both worked full time) is the biggest expense. The twins fit in the boot of the volvo when we wnt out as a 7 (rear facing seats) and I didn't see the car as the biggest issue. As mentinoed above holidays are more expensive partiuclarly for things like skiing rahter than just renting a villa.
They also have to share more but that is no bad thing.
0
0
???10 Jan 19 12:39
You did it 35 years ago when volvos and school fees were cheap as chips,
________________________________________________________________________
I know outing is not cool but if anyone has ever wondered what 3 bikes (or boxes as they are on this browser) looks like and thinks makes you middle class
https://youtu.be/Bldtj3aaO_E
0
0
I consider having more than two children, and certainly more than three, completely socially irresponsible. Don't care what your income is.
0
0
It normally means one of two things:
1. The Missus isn’t all that keen to go back to work.
2. The Missus bumped into Clubbers at some point.
The other option is that some people find the thought of having 5 kids is appealing. These people are certifiable:
0
0
One was enough for me Clive.
0
0
It's very simple.
Anyone with more than two children should be shot to even up the numbers.
Any poor people in that situation should also pay for the bullets, to contribute towards their offspring's inevitable welfare benefits.
0
0
On the other hand, they're more likely to vote the useless Tories out, and vote Brexit in a second referendum, so hold that thought for now...
0
0
Everyone should have at least 10 children.
In binary.
Join the discussion