Live data from Hacker News

The New Work-Life Balance: Don't Have Kids

bloomberg.com

121–130 of 201 posts

Re: The New Work-Life Balance: Don't Have Kids

#121
post #103

There seems to be a colossal misunderstanding in the first line. > successful, meaningful careers, and they just didn't see how they could juggle those jobs and the demands of parenthood. That's a false dilemma. Meaning does not come from a bare "career". It comes from how that "career" relates to others. Not everyone can have kids, and many of us find ourselves alone. "Kids" could equally be replaced by charity work…

It’s also not meaningful if that career coerces you to give up your outside family life (by imposing a huge penalty for having kids) so you can keep working your desk job, report to a boss, and have your 3 weeks of vacation a year.

> imposing a huge penalty for having kids

It shocked me to find quite how devious and aggressive workplaces can be towards women that get pregnant (or who they simply suspect of being in a potentially "fertile" relationship).

Shouldn't it be illegal for employers to monitor communications that might indicate impending motherhood? What about measuring their body temperature covertly? Spying on eating habits. Or making comments about weight and shape?

So you don't have to deal with searching for "Pregnant and screwed" :) here's a link I dug up for people [0] and some real accounts from women in IT who get the sharp end of this [1].

One woman I know went through a wrenching and drawn out court case and won a small fortune against a big British company. She was not able to come on the show because that settlement for constructive dismissal came with a serious NDA/gagging order.

[0] https://pregnantthenscrewed.com/

[1] https://cybershow.uk/episodes.php?id=22

Re: The New Work-Life Balance: Don't Have Kids

#122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Our very survival" is not threatened and you know it. Pretty sure no wealth-controlling multi-billionaires look like indigenous Bolivians.

They can look like Carlos Slim Helu (#8 on the Forbes list of billionaires), Mukesh Ambani (#9), Zhong Shanshan (#15), Gautam Adani (#24), etc. There is no reason why a wealth-controlling multi-billionaire can not look like a native Bolivian.

Of course there isn’t. But you understand that wasn’t my point, yes?

Re: The New Work-Life Balance: Don't Have Kids

#123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats not the kids. Thats your lifestyle. There are people with kids living in the jungle on tubers and pigs.

> There are people with kids living in the jungle on tubers and pigs. Famously easy to switch to this when you live in an HMO in Statesville, State USA or a housing development in Suburbiton, Townshire UK.

They said they spend 10k a month for their kids. I lived in the bay area before. My rent was like 2.5k. 10k outflow a month is fucking insane. Its absolutely indefensibly out of touch spoiled beyond imagination.

You could hire a chef and a maid to cook your kids organic bullshit every day, fly around the entire world once a month and still come under 10k. Whatever they are doing to spend that much needs to be reconsidered. Insurance, tennis practice, private school, whatever it is. 80% of it needs to be cut, and put into savings or invested at regular intervals. Its just plain irresponsible, and to complain about the cost of kids while waving numbers like that around would piss off 90% of families in the US living well under that outflow.

Re: The New Work-Life Balance: Don't Have Kids

#124
post #6

I have two kids. It's tough. But this kind of "opinion" column on a large network is just despicable. Kids is the hardest thing to come to life, I call it "life on hard mode". And I've moved across the world. But the gains are immense. You can bend yourself backward your entire career trying to achieve something that is taken away in a whiff. Your children is a richer investment. When you leave this earth, you're lea…

This is typical parent speak/perspective though.

Yes, having kids is incredibly taxing on ones time and nerves and all that. And yes, most parents probably love their children and have warm pleasant feelings when they see their children grow up. And also at least some percentage of people need to have kids, so that we can continue to exist as a species and all that jazz. All not questioned.

What I do question are the following things, and disclaimer, it is going to be a bit philosophical. I also don't tell you this to tell you, that you are doing something wrong. I am telling you this to give another point of view:

> You can bend yourself backward your entire career trying to achieve something that is taken away in a whiff. Your children is a richer investment. When you leave this earth, you're leaving something tangible.

As a determinist I can understand, that to most people children are a very tangible result of their lives. That's fine. But there are so many other things in life that one could do or achieve, that have nothing to do with children. Your children are not solely your own work's result either. Think of all the people involved in raising them. Think of the rest of society contributing to your kids being able to be raised the way they are. Daycare people, kindergarten, primary school, secondary school, the friendly neighbor, relatives, friends helping with school homework or additional teaching if necessary, ... probably I am forgetting many. And so many people in various professionsa and jobs can claim just as well, that they leave behind something very tangible, even though they might never have kids themselves.

Many actions of many people all day long all contribute just as much, only that their influence on the children's lives are less direct. Butterfly effect and all that.

Ultimately I even find that focus on ones own children a bit selfish. It is probably a very natural tendency and ones own children are ones dearest usually, so I can understant why it exists. However, there is nothing that says society must be this way. Nothing that mandates, that we look after our own child before others.

> Living a full life is about experiencing life fully. Raising children is a huge part of this. Going to a restaurant twice a week with your partner, when you're 40+ and no kids, will get very repetitive and boring.

There are many other huge parts of life. Unfortunately we have to choose in our lives which huge parts we pursue. Why don't you do other good things for society with your partner? You could offer tutoring for pupils in need or for talented ones. You could work for charity saving children around the world. You could do many great things. Those are not lesser things compared to having kids yourself.

> People on HN are typically pretty well off. Low social economic couples tend to have 3, 4, 5+ kids. Certain countries with extremely low standards of living have many kids as well. > Look at yourself and be clear about this: we're thinning.

I see no problem. The only problem I see there is that of broken education systems in my country. I don't care where a child or adult comes from. I care about their education and skills. I care about how they can contribute to our society. I don't have the fear of being replaced by people from other countries. If they are friendly and willing to contribute well to our society, I welcome them.

> Society needs fixing, not having less kids. Smart people need to have kids too.

> If being "smart" is not having kids, we've failed at the game of life!

I partially agree, that society needs fixing. I don't agree on a theoretical basis, that smart people having kids is necessary. I think it is necessary for smart people to pass on their skills and knowledge. Which should be how we fix society. We make the smart people pass on their stuff, through a good education system. Yes, it will be a lot of fixing needed.

Lastly, I do understand, that there are many reasons, why retroactively many people (not saying you in particular) need to justify to themselves the sacrifices they undoubtedly make in raising children. It would be a strong dissonance, if they could not convince themselves of it having been the right choice. It's fine! We all need to cope with our lives. What I would ask parents to do is to consider, that there are other, just as valid viewpoints and that other people can be well aware of all of that and still prioritize differently in their own lives.

Re: The New Work-Life Balance: Don't Have Kids

#125
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you regret having a boyfriend instead of a relationship that biologically can produce children?

No regrets — there's also at least four[0] ways around that off the top of my head, but I think explaining them and how they relate to my life right now would derail the rest of the conversation. [1] Would be five, but I'm too old for sperm donation.

Personally I find a deep satisfaction that my marriage produced a child so far. It gives it a lot of meaning. If I was in a relationship that wasn't headed anywhere except our demise it would eventually feel pointless to me, like a lot of effort for nothing. I'm sure this is a minority opinion though so take it with a grain of salt.

Re: The New Work-Life Balance: Don't Have Kids

#126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human population is constantly growing. We can import people. Actually a lot of people are willing to join us, no need to breed fresh ones.

I don't think you're up to date with current population trends, it's about to peak in the next decades

But that's good! Let it peak, drop a bit, and stabilise around 2 billion or so. That would be perfect for long-term sustainability.

We've seen the same here in Europe. My parents' generation usually had large families, my generation had mostly 1-2 kids, and these days many families have no kids.

Of course poorer countries and countries that are still very religious are a bit behind but they will catch up too. Humanity won't go extinct, there will always be people happy to have children.

Re: The New Work-Life Balance: Don't Have Kids

#127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a selfish thing to do. Nonetheless nothing I condemn. At the end of the day it's harder not to have kids and stop this cycle than not, thanks to evolution.

Some of believe the cycle is pretty incredible, beautiful and net positive despite its flaws.

Yes and I like the point in general.

But we know in which world we bring humans in.

Climate change, rassism, bulling etc.

Re: The New Work-Life Balance: Don't Have Kids

#128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human population is constantly growing. We can import people. Actually a lot of people are willing to join us, no need to breed fresh ones.

I don't think you're up to date with current population trends, it's about to peak in the next decades

Up until now it has been growing. What you call "peak in the next decades" are just UN projections.

And that position can still be reassessed in the next 30 years.

I am still not convinced that a globally aging population is a big issue in the long term.

Re: The New Work-Life Balance: Don't Have Kids

#129
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's weird how a whole bunch of parents jump into threads like these to tell us all about how totally awesome having kids is. I love my son, but it's also easily one of the hardest things I've ever done and will continue to be so for the next 18+ years. I wouldn't recommend having children to anyone: it's a singularity, and there's also no undoing it. You need to be very sure it's what you want. It will be expensive,…

Having kids is the hardest thing anyone can ever do — I am thinking of counterpoints while writing, but none comes to mind. However, I recommend having children. It is, contrary to some commenters, not a selfish thing to do, but a completely selfless act. You can see it for yourself when you watch the children around you: The pure joy of being alive! The full range of emotions! The good, the bad and the ugly… You cou…

> Having kids is the hardest thing anyone can ever do

Ok I'll bite. It's not anywhere near the hardest thing anyone can ever do. It's very easy to get started, most people just do it day by day, it's integrated with life, and throwing in the towel is kinda frowned upon. I'm sorry your kid had colic, my first had the same although not for as long and my second would just scream in bed when she was a little older so I'd stay and read and doze while holding her hand. But it wasn't hard like if I decided to write a book or climb a mountain or something.

Re: The New Work-Life Balance: Don't Have Kids

#130
post #3

I can imagine. For me it's the reason also to not want kids. I want to enjoy my life. But it's good for environmental reasons to not have kids anyway.

People who don't care about the environment are breeding like rabbits. Their children, too, won't care about the environment. The best thing you can do for the environment is to find someone as passionate as yourself and create a large family of conscientious, thoughtful, active environmentalists.

Very few people in first world countries though, will be able to balance or surpass negative environmental effects of all the usual things included in raising a child, even with activist lives. Neither will their children.
Post reply on HN