{"id":52635,"date":"2026-02-03T03:04:43","date_gmt":"2026-02-03T10:04:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/?p=52635"},"modified":"2026-02-03T05:26:24","modified_gmt":"2026-02-03T12:26:24","slug":"where-are-the-big-families-in-the-us","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/2026\/02\/where-are-the-big-families-in-the-us\/","title":{"rendered":"How Many Big Families Are in the US?  Where Are They?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>As we were growing our family, each parity level fundamentally represented something different to the world about who you were. It went something like this, but experiences may vary:<\/p>\n<p>0 kids) Very atypical for married Latter-day Saint, the operating assumption if you&#8217;re old enough is that you have fertility problems. For gentiles there&#8217;s the possibility that you&#8217;re just a power couple or really into traveling and have decided to not have kids. (I&#8217;ve never understood people who choose this demographic; if you&#8217;re going to live the free-living, unattached life, then why be married in the first place? But I digress).<\/p>\n<p>1 kid) Within the past couple of decades this has entered into the confidence intervals of &#8220;normal&#8221; for gentiles. Again, for Latter-day Saints it&#8217;s assumed the one-kid family is from infertility\/health issues, and it&#8217;s still somewhat atypical. I suspect that if you were to look at the parity distribution of completed fertility for members there&#8217;d be a hill at \u00a00 and 2, with a valley at 1.<\/p>\n<p>2 kids) The golden mean all-American family. You&#8217;re a picture perfect &#8220;family man&#8221; (I&#8217;d say &#8220;or family woman,&#8221; but that&#8217;s not really a term in common use, for a variety of interesting reasons). There&#8217;s actually some evidence in demography if you have one boy and one girl you&#8217;re much more likely to stop, presumably because you&#8217;ve hit the perfect American family. For members in the past this level was indicative of infertility or health problems but I&#8217;m surprised at how many Church members I personally know are opting for this, even in the absence of any health, psychological, or financial issues. I get the sense that this being the lowest tier needed to fulfill the &#8220;replenish&#8221; mandate has some heft with members.<\/p>\n<p>3 kids) Similarly, three is the lowest tier needed to &#8220;multiply,&#8221; of the &#8220;multiply and replenish,&#8221; command, and I think that means something for members. For gentiles 3 kids puts you squarely in the super duper family, life-in-the-suburbs category.<\/p>\n<p>4 kids) This is where things start to get weird for gentiles. (Large family comedian Jim Gaffigan noted that after three kids people stop congratulating you). I think the operating assumption here is that either 1) you&#8217;re a mixed family with multiple marriages, or 2) you&#8217;re religious. Not extremely so necessarily, but you&#8217;re probably a weekly church attender. I remember when we got to four officially thinking of ourselves as a &#8220;big family&#8221; (with some reason, as seen below). For super orthodox Latter-day Saints this has become the &#8220;one boy, one girl&#8221; version of the all-American family. This is where you start to get the &#8220;you have your hands full&#8221; comment that we big families outside of Utah hear every other minute.<\/p>\n<p>5 kids) You&#8217;re clearly weird, and this is where they start to suspect that you&#8217;re a Trad Catholic, Evangelical Protestant, or Latter-day Saint. However, in some sectors of Latter-day Saint culture this number is considered honorable and even praiseworthy even if slightly atypical. We haven&#8217;t gotten to &#8220;weird even for Latter-day Saints&#8221; territory yet.<\/p>\n<p>6 kids) For your gentile friends you have the largest family they know. For Latter-day Saints it&#8217;s still considered noble, but it&#8217;s getting theoretical in 2026 with its rarity. You start to come up with canned responses to little slights (my favorite: &#8220;don&#8217;t you know what makes children?&#8221; &#8220;Yeah, and we&#8217;re getting really good at it!&#8221;)<\/p>\n<p>7 kids) Everybody assumes you homeschool your kids so they don&#8217;t learn about evolution or something.<\/p>\n<p>8 kids) People stop asking you if you&#8217;re done, because they kind of know the answer, and even Latter-day Saints think that you&#8217;re weird and stop congratulating you. I assume this is rare outside of hard core Trad Catholics, Quiverfull Protestants, Latter-day Saint seminary teacher types (besides myself, every member family I know this large under the age of 50 works for either the Church or BYU-Idaho), or Haredi Jews.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\">Outside of my own anecdotal observations, I was curious about exactly how &#8220;weird&#8221; different levels of big families were, so I looked at the total, national rates for 18-50 year olds in 2024. I <a href=\"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/2025\/06\/how-common-are-the-proverbial-big-catholic-latter-day-saint-quiverfull-protestant-families\/\">already did a post<\/a> on religion and big families using the CES. However, the CES, while large (60,000 some years), is still not quite large enough for super big families, since we&#8217;re such a small portion of the population, so I used the Census IPUMS data, <a href=\"https:\/\/usa.ipums.org\/usa\/sda\/\">using a simple crosstab<\/a> and subsetting for 2024.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\">The left column shows the ratio of 18\u201350 year olds to every one person at that parity. So there are 1.7 18-50 year olds in the country for every 1 that is not living with any of their own children, 6.8 for every 1 that is living with exactly one of their own children, etc.<\/p>\n<table class=\" aligncenter\" border=\"0\" width=\"174\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\">\n<colgroup>\n<col span=\"2\" width=\"87\" \/><\/colgroup>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td class=\"xl66\" width=\"87\" height=\"21\">0<\/td>\n<td class=\"xl65\" align=\"right\" width=\"87\">1.7<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td class=\"xl66\" height=\"21\">1<\/td>\n<td class=\"xl65\" align=\"right\">6.8<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td class=\"xl66\" height=\"21\">2<\/td>\n<td class=\"xl65\" align=\"right\">6.1<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td class=\"xl66\" height=\"21\">3<\/td>\n<td class=\"xl65\" align=\"right\">14.0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td class=\"xl66\" height=\"21\">4<\/td>\n<td class=\"xl65\" align=\"right\">42.8<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td class=\"xl66\" height=\"21\">5<\/td>\n<td class=\"xl65\" align=\"right\">151.1<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td class=\"xl66\" height=\"21\">6<\/td>\n<td class=\"xl65\" align=\"right\">462.7<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td class=\"xl66\" height=\"21\">7<\/td>\n<td class=\"xl65\" align=\"right\">1262.9<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td class=\"xl66\" height=\"21\">8<\/td>\n<td class=\"xl65\" align=\"right\">3025.7<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td class=\"xl66\" height=\"21\">9<\/td>\n<td class=\"xl65\" align=\"right\">3662.3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\">So I am one out of 3,025 (maybe 3,662 depending on labor timing). When we graph it we see that it starts to get really &#8220;weird&#8221; and exponentially rarer at around four. (Of course these numbers shift around if we set our age limits differently, but I doubt it changes the overall curve.) Which makes sense to me, given my observations above. Four is still in the realm of &#8220;that&#8217;s a huge family but you&#8217;re still kind of normal and that&#8217;s a nice even number&#8221; whereas with 5+ you&#8217;re clearly not somebody who goes with the flow, and then there&#8217;s another big drop-off going from 7 to 8.<\/p>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-52647 aligncenter\" src=\"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Screenshot-800x570.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"474\" height=\"338\" srcset=\"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Screenshot-800x570.png 800w, https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Screenshot.png 1098w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 474px) 100vw, 474px\" \/><\/p>\n<p>I also wanted to see <em>where<\/em> large families were.<\/p>\n<p>Even though <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_fertility_rate\">Utah is below replacement childbearing and is the ninth highest<\/a> for fertility (falling from 3rd highest in 2019), Utah is still far and away number one for number of people who live with 5+ of their own children (yes, it&#8217;s an oddly specific variable, but it&#8217;s the only proxy for number of own children the Census Bureau collects information on).<\/p>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-52636 aligncenter\" src=\"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Table1-800x445.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"541\" height=\"301\" srcset=\"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Table1-800x445.png 800w, https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Table1-1536x855.png 1536w, https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Table1.png 1768w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 541px) 100vw, 541px\" \/><\/p>\n<p>What I think this means is that Utah has enough childless or small families to offset the 3% of 18-50 year olds who are having huge families and bringing it down a few notches on the average rankings. However, the unique particularity of &#8220;big families,&#8221; not one when the expectation is none, or 2 when the default would have been one, but stereotypically, historically &#8220;big,&#8221; is still something that is very Utahn and, for this particular variable by extension, Latter-day Saint, even if our averages hide that fact.<\/p>\n<p>So big families are quite rare, but in the right places and networks you can still know a handful, but in others, say, secular white people in Maine, they have largely become the stuff of legend.<img \/><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>As we were growing our family, each parity level fundamentally represented something different to the world about who you were. It went something like this, but experiences may vary: 0 kids) Very atypical for married Latter-day Saint, the operating assumption if you&#8217;re old enough is that you have fertility problems. For gentiles there&#8217;s the possibility that you&#8217;re just a power couple or really into traveling and have decided to not have kids. (I&#8217;ve never understood people who choose this demographic; if you&#8217;re going to live the free-living, unattached life, then why be married in the first place? But I digress). 1 kid) Within the past couple of decades this has entered into the confidence intervals of &#8220;normal&#8221; for gentiles. Again, for Latter-day Saints it&#8217;s assumed the one-kid family is from infertility\/health issues, and it&#8217;s still somewhat atypical. I suspect that if you were to look at the parity distribution of completed fertility for members there&#8217;d be a hill at \u00a00 and 2, with a valley at 1. 2 kids) The golden mean all-American family. You&#8217;re a picture perfect &#8220;family man&#8221; (I&#8217;d say &#8220;or family woman,&#8221; but that&#8217;s not really a term in common use, for a variety of interesting reasons). [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10403,"featured_media":52636,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[34],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-52635","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-social-sciences-and-economics"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Table1.png","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52635","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10403"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=52635"}],"version-history":[{"count":27,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52635\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":52697,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52635\/revisions\/52697"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/52636"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52635"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52635"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52635"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}