Is three the new two?

Last Sunday I went to a reunion of sorts with my six best friends from high school (well, one was blended in a few years later, but it just feels like we've known him since high school). It was the first time all of us had gotten together with our families in years. Among the seven families, the breakdown was this: two families had one kid; two families had two kids; and three families had three kids, for a total of 15 kids. Besides the absolute shock of seeing that my geeky little high school gang had spawned an entire village, it got me thinking: Is three the new two?

I always knew I wanted two children, perhaps because that is the size of the family I grew up in. Four is such a nice square number: We fit easily in a car or around a restaurant table. Not to mention the appealing idea that we create just enough new people to replace ourselves. And of course, if you live in Manhattan, as I do, having more than two children means either squeezing everyone into a one- or two-bedroom apartment, or spending well over $2 million for a three-bedroom. Not to mention school tuition and the logistics of chauffering three or more kids all over the city for soccer, piano, etc (though I suppose that is a universal issue). In the suburbs, I hear, three kids has become the norm. One friend, who lives in Missouri, told me that neighbors have gently inquired if she is having fertility or health issues, because she chose to stop after two kids.

Just in the past couple of years, though, I have noticed more and more three-kid families in New York (I have even heard a rumor that there is a four-kid family living in my building, but I have yet to meet them). Is this simply a social trend, is it a statement showing off how many resources the family has, or it is a renewed sense of optimism about the world?