Hellobee Boards

I find the opposite true for me. Most of my friends' parents and my parents had kids back to back to back. My brother and I were 2 under 2, several of my friends were 3 under 3/4!

Most of my friends now have kids 2-3 years apart if not further. Or are in the DINK or 1 and done camp!

for ref: I'm 30, had my first kid at 29 and live in Michigan. My mom had me at 29, and my brother at 30/31. She was considered "old" for her generation to have kids. Not sure if any of those factors play a part!

My brother and I were in the 2 under 2 category. DH and I are likely 1 and Done because of my age.

We will definitely never be 2 under 2. I think maybe the age thing has something to do with it. People want more than one kid, wait until their 30s and then have a couple close together.

We were 24 when C was born and will be waiting 5 years or so to have another.

I know a lot of people with siblings close in age.

My brother and I are under 2 years apart and we knew a lot of families with similar spacing. I think it's less common now so when people hear it now then tend to think it was unplanned. My good friend had 3 under 2 bc she got pregnant with twins when her LO was 9 months.

Maybe because so many people in our parents' generation started earlier than so many people now, they didn't feel as much pressure to have kids closer together? Just a thought, but I'm not sure it's accurate.

I can think of way more people I know that have a sibling really close in age than have their children really close in age. We are expecting to have 2 under 2. It was not exactly planned but we stopped preventing so that if it did happen quickly we could have the option for 3 and if it took a while, at least we could hopefully have 2 before I got too old. I had my first at 30 and do not want to have any kids after 35.

@littlek: Yep, ours is similar . . . daycare for one is just over $1,600 per month (not including uniforms and a few other items).

I don't know anyone personally who has 2 under 2. My friends who SAH with their kids have two each, but the spacing is a bit bigger. With daycare costs being what they are, I would have to SAH if we had kids that close together.

My parents had 3 under 3 when my brother was born. We are exactly 18 months apart.

All my friends are spacing so their kids will be at least 3 years apart. 2 under 2 is not common at all to me.

And like PP have said, we could never do it based on day care costs. In fact we might not be able to have another because of day care.

my mom and her sisters were born 1957, 1959, 1961, 1963, and 1969.

My brother and I are 9 years apart (mom had 2 mc's between us though)

Hubs and his brother are 3 years apart.

I'd like to space them in the 3-5 year range. This would give us a chance to increase our earnings to the point where i'd be a SAHM, maybe move into a bigger house in a nicer neighborhood and avoid having 2 kids in day care or college at the same time. I also think if we had a third we would have that baby closer 1-3 years apart from #2

If we have a 3rd, it won't be till B is in K or 1st grade.

Really? This hasn't been my experience either. I thought it was more common back then to have 2 under 2. I know so many!

Both DH and I came from families of 2 under 2. We're both 19 months apart from our siblings.

My sister and I are 4 years apart, and we want to have 2 under 2. I think both of our families will be shocked if that does work out!

My MIL had 3 under 3.... :O

I purposely aimed for the 22 month age diff we got. I think it's pretty evenly divided- I know lots of fams that like a 1.5-2 yr age gap, and some that prefer 3-5. Growing up so close to my sister who's 21 months younger- that's exactly what I wanted for my own kids.

My parents didn't try or prevent and all of us around 2.5ish years apart. Good age gap imo.

@Andrea: I think 2 yr 9 months is perfect!

We started trying when my daughter was 9 months, because I was hoping for two under two. I'd have preferred to frontload the difficult part and sooner get out of the baby years. Now that my daughter is two and I'm still not pregnant, I'm getting less and less excited about the prospect of going back to the baby years, and further derailing my career prospects. I'd far rather have a newborn now than in a year or two.

I also wanted my children to be close in age.

My brother and I are 2.5 years apart. A lot of my friends have siblings that are about 2 years younger or older. I am of "advanced maternal age" (lol @mediagirl: I always chuckled when I went to my OB and I was referred to as that.) and will probably end up having 2 under 2 due to my age. LO is 4mo and we'll probably start trying for #2 when she is almost 1. I have friends who have/had 2 under 2 and they say it's best to just get it all over with (the baby stage)-- that it's extremely difficult but once they are older, it's more fun since they are closer in age.

@cascademom: my brother and I are almost 8 years apart and I agree it's not a good age spread. We're basically like two only children who were forced to share the same house for a few years. I want to have our kids no more than 4 years apart -- we'll probably aim for about 3, give or take a few months.

I know very few people with little ones very close in age, I'd say 2-3 years is most common and 4-5 years is next-most common (and not necessarily by choice, some of them had difficulties while trying for #2). But I also know a ton of people who are one and done.