jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (38 posts)

Can a 15-17 year old share a bedroom with a toddler sibling?

  1. SPomposello profile image80
    SPomposelloposted 3 years ago

    My wife and I currently live in a small two bedroom in the Bronx, NY. We have a 15 year old daughter. My wife is pregnant with another on the way, we don't know the sex yet.

    We plan on moving into a bigger 2 bedroom by the time the newborn turns two years old. The thing is 3 bedrooms are expensive here. I figure our 15 year old could share with its new sibling from two years old onwards in the new place. We also plan on paying our teenage daughter to look after her sibling every now and then.

    I don't see it as an issue as long as either:

    *Assuming our teenager will most likely have a place of her own by the time the younger sibling hits puberty.

    *Perhaps our teenager will have a job of her own after high school and can pitch in, help with the rent. We could get a 3 bedroom, split the rent 3 ways and we cover all her other expenses.

    Any thoughts?

    1. gmwilliams profile image84
      gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Teenagers NEED PRIVACY, she should not have to share a room w/ a toddler.   Now here is my suggestion: have about sharing YOUR bedroom w/the toddler.   The teenager should not be FORCED into sharing HER bedroom w/the toddler.  Since you and your wife made the baby, then you and she should READILY share YOUR bedroom w/the baby, NOT your teenage daughter-that would be so UNFAIR to her!   Also, look for an inexpensive house which YOU can improvise on.  One can build a small extra room for the baby. My uncle did that w/his 4 sons, NONE of them NEVER had to share a room.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        And yet...100 years ago whole families lived in just one or two rooms, plus an outhouse.  Today, many houses are occupied by two or even three complete families of illegal aliens - a dozen or more children and 4-6 adults crammed into a single 2 or 3 bedroom house.

        The housing in the US is gigantic compared to the rest of the world - no one else seems to require separate rooms for each person in the household.  Only in the US is that the common practice.

        I doubt that the child would suffer permanent psychic damage, then.  It is customary in the US to have separate bedrooms, it is the norm and she could be ostracized by her school friends, but I really can't see her being damaged at all.

        1. gmwilliams profile image84
          gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          We are living in more modern times.   As people become more affluent, they do not have to live on top of each other, that is so uncvilized.  Crowding does have an adverse affect on people.  People need space and privacy.  Again, since the parents made the baby, let the baby sleep in THEIR bedroom, the daughter did not make the baby.

          C'mon now, the daughter should have her OWN room, let the baby sleep with the parents.  It is the mother who is pregnant, not the daughter.  Let the parents' bedroom be the living quarters of the baby.  There are cheaper houses which the government has foreclosed and can be obtained cheaply.  One can also build an extra room for the baby when he/she gets older.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Affluence typically affects desires, not physical nor mental attributes.  A young girl wants a room, does not NEED one.  Wants are often viewed as needs, claimed as needs, but at the end of the day are only wants.

            There is zero doubt that mankind evolved with family groups living in very close quarters.  Two children sharing one room may be "uncivilized" in your opinion, but the rest of the world disagrees and our history clear back to caveman days disagrees.  It is the norm, not the exception, for children to share a room.

            1. gmwilliams profile image84
              gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The parents have to really buckle up, get EXTRA jobs in order for BOTH children to live comfortably.   One child should not have to sacrifice for the other child, that is so unfair.  The daughter did not have a say in the pregnancy so why should she bear the consequence.   It is the parents' problem and it is UP to THE PARENTS(you and your wife) to solve and remedy the situation at hand!

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Sharing a bedroom with another child is not "living uncomfortably".  Living with two parents both working two jobs in order to afford another bedroom is absolutely "living uncomfortably" and living in conditions no child should ever grow up in.  Anyone - anyone at all - that thinks a private bedroom takes priority over quality time with Mom AND Dad has a lot of learning to do.

                What you are claiming for a personal bedroom can also be said for every possible luxury a child might want.  A nice sports car.  A beach house.  A personal big screen TV.  A personal telephone and computer, with private lines.  A credit card, paid for by Daddy.  All of these are just as necessary as a private bedroom in order to "live comfortably" - just ask the spoiled rich brat that wants them.

                1. SPomposello profile image80
                  SPomposelloposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Good point about comfort ability there.

        2. cfin profile image78
          cfinposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          "The housing in the US is gigantic compared to the rest of the world - no one else seems to require separate rooms for each person in the household.  Only in the US is that the common practice."

          What? I find houses in the US to be quite small. I just couldn't hold my tongue on this, but there are plenty of countries that have much larger houses than the US. So please don't mention to people that it's only common practice in the US. It just feeds into "that" US stereotype that Americans think every other country is poor or beneath them.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Of a half dozen sites checked, all showed only one country, Australia, to be building new homes larger than those in the US.  http://www.demographia.com/db-intlhouse.htm

            Where are these "plenty of countries" you reference?

            1. cfin profile image78
              cfinposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Ireland, the UK, New Zeland, Canada..... The average size of a house around where I live is about 1,300 sq foot in the US. I grew up in Ireland where houses are at the minimum this size and new houses being built are much larger. Similar to how surveys compare the public sector health services of these countries to private sector of the US while there are also private sector in those countries.

              The "Research" I have seen on the US is "interesting" to say the least. My brother is an architect and couldn't believe how small houses are here. And usually when they claim to be larger it includes a finished basement below level.

              And example "The average floor area of one-off rural houses permitted in Ireland between 2005 and 2008 is a 230.8 sq.m which is almost twice the average floor area for a multi-unit dwelling house (129 sq.m) for the same period. Each year since 2005 the average floor area for one-off rural houses has increased and in 2009 the average floor area increased to 252.9 sq.m in Quarter 2."
              http://oneoffireland.wordpress.com/the-issue/

              This also backs up your point that we have far too much space compared to some countries, but NO, the US is not the ONLY country to live in large houses.
              And for your reference, 252.9 sq ft = 2722.2 sq ft

              Regarding the 203 sq mt figure for the US in your chart, this would more than likely include a basement which is not the case in other countries. And I'm not sure about you, but I have seen 2 houses in 4 years being build that are 2k sq ft + above ground.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Average new home size in:
                US     2204 sq. feet
                Ireland    953
                New Zealand    1913
                Canada    1489

                These are the countries you claim have larger homes than the US?

                My son moved into a new home just this year - 3400 sq. ft.  There isn't a house in his subdivision under the 2k sq ft you say you so seldom see, and there are least a dozen more under construction.  And no, basements aren't the cause; even though we're a semi-desert area basements are not popular.

                On the other hand, stand alone homes of around 500 sq ft are now being approved for construction in the nearby city of Boise.  Which is why we look at averages, not minimum or maximum.  No one cares about Bill Gates's 66,000 sq ft home except that it raises the average just a tiny tick.  The average is what matters.

                1. cfin profile image78
                  cfinposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Here is another article, that only covers a handful of countries, but surely you can see that the US is not the ONLY country where people live in a large house. ANd to claim that the average Irish house is 950 sq foot is laughable. Again, my brother is an architect from there and we talk about how stupid people are to build such large houses there all the time. http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/how-big-is-a-house

                  You know, I want to be fair here, but it really bugs me. When I moved to the US, these kind of ridiculous comments really annoyed me. Yes, the US is one of the wealthier nations, but NO the US is not so much bigger and better off than EVERYONE else. Such comments are highly offensive and are the reason many Americans such as my wife find it difficult when traveling, because people are so used to hearing US citizens up on their soapbox about everything from house size to the dollar, from schooling to politics and being the biggest and best. My country for example, is half the size of Wisconsin, has a smaller population and a larger GDP, yet they make it on our own. So tired of Wisconsinites telling me that it's a third world country while it couldn't be further from the truth and while I half pity the way the majority of people live in Wisconsin.

                  The US is very average at everything compared to other western nations with similar cultures and that is fine. They just happen to have 50 states and a massive population that are spoon fed nonsense by cnn ad foxnews about countries they have never visited and have no idea about. In per capita comparison, there is nothing special or better here. Just the same as the rest of the western world with 50 countries strapped together. Some things are great about each state, some things are great about each country. I love the US, but it makes me so mad when people INSIST on this kind of thing. So YES, there are other countries that have large houses, and NO the US is not in this respect superior to EVERYONE. Further, there are states within the US where people live in shacks of about a average of 600 Sq ft.

                  Good day.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, I've seen that site.  It, too, shows exactly one country with larger homes than the US: Australia.  Which is exactly what I've been saying, isn't it?

                    It may really make you mad that American homes are bigger, but I'm not sure that is a reason to point to stats that reaffirm the fact and say that it shows the opposite.  That's just silly.

                    One of the big reasons for those homes is the population density.  Both Australia and the US have a much lower population density than most of Europe and that very definitely affects the cost of land and thus housing.  And that's just the way it is; being angry about it and viewing it as some kind of American superiority complex doesn't change anything.

                2. cfin profile image78
                  cfinposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  The worst thing about your statement, I rented my own 2 bed apartment in the middle of the small city of waterford for 4 years at E500 a month and it was more than 950 sq ft. I was far from wealthy. The only place people live in tiny apartments would be right in the middle of the largest cities when they are students and where an apartment is over E1,000,000 to purchase. But hey, what would I know? I just have personal experience and find the figures provided laughable.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Rabbit-hutch Britain: Growing health concerns as UK sets record for smallest properties in Europe
                    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho … 44450.html

                    And you're right - using personal experience to extend to country or continent wide average numbers doesn't show much of anything.

    2. profile image0
      calculus-geometryposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      For a while when I was a teen I had to share a room with my 4-year-old sibling and another sibling.  Bunk beds no less. Honestly it wasn't that bad and I had enough privacy since the other two liked to play together in the living room most of the time. When they went to bed earlier than me, I moved to the living room.  There are worse things in life than sharing a room.

      As long as the toddler is able to sleep through the night I think your teen daughter will be ok sharing the room.  Of course, if the baby is still at an age when he/she wakes up frequently, then he/she should be in the parents' room, otherwise your daughter won't get any sleep and her schoolwork will suffer.

    3. bethperry profile image90
      bethperryposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      My husband grew up in a small house with only two bedrooms. For the kids, his folks put up a partition that divided the larger bedroom. There were three boys; my husband and his younger brother shared half of the room until the older left home. And they have never grumbled over that fact. In fact, they say it helped them become very close as brothers.

      As for people who complain it is wrong for a teenager to share a room with a younger sibling, I only wish I had had a little sister to share my room with!

    4. ijdmtoy profile image47
      ijdmtoyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      better not......

  2. SPomposello profile image80
    SPomposelloposted 3 years ago

    Well we talked to our teen about it and she said she's fine with it. Some things that I think need clarification from my original post:

    1. We would keep the baby with us until its two. If we keep it with us until its like 5 or 10 then I think our marriage will suffer from privacy issues if you know what I mean and before you know it there's only 1 parent left, who knows.

    2. By the time its born, our teen will be 16. By the time its two, our teen will be 18 and done with high school. Their bdays are a couple months apart and late in the year.

    3. By the time it turns 3, I'll be done with college myself, will have my masters in the health field, so that would automatically take care of all this.

    now.... I hear everyone's point about each kid needing their own room but, a very big BUT, when both parents make $30k a year AFTER taxes (minus $24k in monthly expenses) and you live in NYC where the median 3 bedroom is $1500-$1700 a month to rent (yes, I said rent, we are saving for buying a home still), can beggars really be choosers?

    Mind you I'm not talking about Manhattan. Forget that pipe dream. I'm talking about 3 bedrooms in Bronx, Brooklyn, queens, and parts of jersey by the water.

    What if we rent a new 2 bedroom with a dining room and turn that dining room into a bedroom?

    1. gmwilliams profile image84
      gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Cool, forget about Manhattan. Manhattan is prohibitively expensive.  Have to think about the New York outskirts.  Even Brooklyn and many parts of the Bronx are becoming expensive.  I am retired and luckily live in an inexpensive apartment. 

      Feel so sorry for the young people today with this prohibitive rent.  One really has to make at least $100k to break even in New York, especially in Manhattan!  My God, it is MUCH WORSE than I thought!  Good luck to you and your wife and the precious baby.   God bless.   Make some contacts regarding good, affordable housing.  Also please avoid the predatory lenders-they are dangerous snakes who mean nothing but harm.   

      Housing is becoming so precarious these days, so sad indeed!   I understand your predictament-look into foreclosures, get into affordable housing but to REITERATE, avoid the PREDATORY LENDERS like the plaque!

      1. profile image0
        Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        May I just say that is one amazing response to this OP?  While you initially disagreed based on your personal view of the situation, which is based on a very wide knowledge of sociology and other important factors, I see you here taking a much needed more gentle approach to the individual's situation.  It just happens so rarely in these forums, and is awesome to see.  Thank you, gmwilliams. big_smile You earn my awesomest poster of the day award!

        1. gmwilliams profile image84
          gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Mo, thank you so much and God Bless.   Housing is SO EXPENSIVE these days; that is uncalled for; people DO HAVE A RIGHT TO DECENT HOUSING!    There must be affordable and decent housing for ALL, NOT JUST FOR THE FEW!  Sadly, this postmodern culture is reminiscent of Dickensian England, so sad indeed!

  3. psycheskinner profile image82
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    I agree that a baby toddler should be in the parent's room.  This is your baby, not your teen's.

  4. SPomposello profile image80
    SPomposelloposted 3 years ago

    So if we manage to get a 2 bed apt with a dining room and turn that dining room into a 3rd bedroom, that should work right?

    1. gmwilliams profile image84
      gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yes it can!

 
working