Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 201 posts

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

#141

Post by bemusedthrow75 »

wegfawefgawefg wrote: post #123
bemusedthrow75 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 reconsi…

I am sure it's quite a high figure (I don't know how high; I suspect not as outrageously high as it might seem).

But your reply was not any more of a practical solution. I was trying to centre it on a more realistic observation that money outgoings are connected to much less easily fixable lifestyle circumstances.

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

#142

Post by bemusedthrow75 »

xyzzy4747 wrote: post #108
supersrdjan wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading the rest of this thread, it seems that the anti-anti-natalists (to which I gravitate more closely) are misrepresenting the anti-natalists' view and that they don't actually expect everyone to be anti-natalist?

Perhaps but even then they’re not exactly being role models or exemplary people.

Crikey. Is it really the case, here on HN, that not wanting to have kids actually makes you an "anti-natalist"?

It just means you don't want to have kids. It doesn't imply any kind of belief structure.

Who knew HN had such a trad subculture.

Does not wanting children rule you out from being a role model for them (or anyone else) or being "exemplary"?

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

#143

Post by wkat4242 »

prmoustache wrote: post #128
lm28469 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Me neither. China is facing the same thing and we have the boomers getting old.

Such a phase sucks but it's temporary. Eventually the wave of old people is gone and things are back to normal. It's not something we can't overcome.

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

#144

Post by moaf »

hiAndrewQuinn wrote: post #28

You could also just work less, or let yourself spend less time and energy on your kids. I get that most people recoil in horror at the latter one. I think they're silly. The fact of the matter is the world is a safer and more prosperous place than ever before. You should be able to invest less into your children than your parents did before you and still have them lead happy lives. If you have a child, and your own l…

> You could also just work less, or let yourself spend less time and energy on your kids.

When nearing end of life, many people, especially fathers, say they wish they'd dedicated more time to their children rather than work. While meaningful work can provide purpose, it doesn't compare to the happiness derived from building meaningful relationships with loved ones. Children offer a rare opportunity to enjoy one of the deepest forms of human connection available, and I think it's shortsighted to put career advancement over building a family. Balancing work and family life is challenging, but the payoff is well worth it.

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

#145

Post by ghusto »

On the one hand, I'm happy to see people being responsible. So many people who shouldn't have had children don't change, and think they can "have it all". You can not. Your life as you know it is over, and if that only dawned on you after you already had a kid, then join the club, but don't delude yourself, and don't make your kid suffer the consequences of your delusion.

On the other hand; stop being a little wuss. The reasons I see being given by those fretting the responsibilities seem to be born from general anxiety and over-thinking. Nobody is ever ready to have a child, but we do it any learn along the way because we're arrogant enough in the beginning, and humble enough afterward the beginning.

What I see with this generation however, is never trying because on paper it's impossible. Yes, it's impossible, but that shouldn't stop you if it's what you really want.

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

#146

Post by foinker »

psacawa wrote: post #62
menschmanfred wrote: post #34

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.

This is a remarkable inversion. The primary reason people forego children in the west is because it throws a wrench in their comfortable lifestyle. They prefer to live unto themselves, instead of unto children, i.e. selfishly. I believe the environmental/climactic concerns raised by antinatalists are just a feeble deflection. They are primarily interested in personal comfort.

As a childless person I agree entirely. I fully acknowledge and embrace that I don't have kids because I'd rather not deal with the hassle of it.

Although I've not fully understood what makes that decision "selfish" in the sense that I'm not acting in a way that is a detriment to others.

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

#147

Post by ghusto »

XorNot wrote: post #44
Affric wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Life is what any of us make it. The antinatalist position is fundamentally fatalistic. It’s a total negation of the one redeeming feature of the universe: anything could happen. I respect not having kids. The idea that you’re inherently better off not having kids is nonsense.

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,…

Agreed, but with a different conclusion to you.

Since you have children, I think you'd agree with me that it's changed you in a way that you can't explain to someone who doesn't have any? Wouldn't you rather everyone underwent that change?

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

#148

Post by ghusto »

furyg3 wrote: post #82

View from a US-expat in the Netherlands: It doesn't have to be as bad as it is. Subsidize daycare, fund schools (from pre-school to university) and focus on learning at-school and not at-home, and pass laws forcing employers to allow parents to reduce their working hours, should they wish to. You can rebuild your cities to be bike able, change gender norms, or change work culture, but honestly the most change will co…

It's not a co-incidence that so many people come here to raise their children, but close-by countries like France, Germany, and Spain aren't much different.

And yeah, complaining is the national pass-time, until you visit certain other countries ;)

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

#149

Post by ghusto »

quietbritishjim wrote: post #46
hiAndrewQuinn wrote: post #28

You could also just work less, or let yourself spend less time and energy on your kids. I get that most people recoil in horror at the latter one. I think they're silly. The fact of the matter is the world is a safer and more prosperous place than ever before. You should be able to invest less into your children than your parents did before you and still have them lead happy lives. If you have a child, and your own l…

I wonder if the key issue here is lack of housing in developed countries. Here in the UK, owning a nice house (not just a flat/apartment) in a decent suburb is out of reach for most people who are at the traditional age to have children. That is a problem of lack of land rather than some inherent material cost. With such a vicious fight over the few properties that exist, almost all income is squeezed on that goal, w…

The Netherlands has the 17th highest population density in the world, and most of our land is still dotted with water here and there (all very cleverly, but it's still there). There are vast areas of nature reserves, with no building allowed.

Most people can afford a house, even in the Randstad. So it's not a lack of land, and it's not development blocking. I'm not suggesting anything else, but though I'd take those two out behind the shed.

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

#150

Post by XorNot »

wkat4242 wrote: post #140
XorNot wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bottom-end of "human's as a species still exist" is not an existence you are familiar with or want, and is worse then what our hunter-gatherer forebears had to deal with. > Some areas will even become more habitable. Rather makes a lot of assumptions that the "no longer supportable" population will simply gracefully starve to death and leave the lucky ones be in the interim.

> The bottom-end of "human's as a species still exist" is not an existence you are familiar with or want, and is worse then what our hunter-gatherer forebears had to deal with. No, but that's the case even now. The bottom end of humanity is having a horrible time. I'm sure people in North Korea or the war-torn countries in Africa won't be that much worse off than they are now. > Rather makes a lot of assumptions that…

So to summarize: you have completely undue confidence that this "won't be that bad" for you, despite billion+ death levels.

Buddy: you're posting on a forum for tech workers. Not owners. Not billionaires. Not only are we not on anyone's radar as "essential", no one needs that many of us. Might want to rethink your place in the decaying world order if you think an ecosystem collapse needs a lot of programmers.

Post reply on HN