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

161–170 of 201 posts

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

#161

Post by wkat4242 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #151
wkat4242 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Humanit…

Honest questions: Can we maintain our current tech level with 2 billion people? And if we can't, is that fair to future generations? Aren't we condemning them to a more miserable life? (On the other hand, if 8 billion people leads to destroying the environment, that also leaves them more miserable...)

Of course we can. Even with a lot less. We can automate the hell out of everything :) In fact there's a big concern that there won't be enough work. Even hypercapitalist countries like the US are thinking about UBI now.

Food will be a bigger problem but less people also means less food needed.

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

#162

Post by Balgair »

wegfawefgawefg wrote: post #160
Balgair wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, 10k/mo for four kids is on the cheaper side for the Bay. Just in daycare alone, they should be at ~8k/mo for four (~$500/wk/kid, daycares can't do bulk discounts). I have friends in TN that are at ~1k/wk. per kid with a ~2.5 year waiting lists. Daycare isn't well tied local cost of living in the US. Also, rent for one person isn't rent for a family of six, it should be a bit higher for the extra space. And…

10k is not on the cheap side. lentils and potatos, my friend. lentils and potatos.

Okay, now I'm curious.

How would you go about raising four kids in the Bay?

Not super detailed, but you know, just a sketch. Daycare? Food costs? Housing? Health Insurance? Those kinds of big ticket items. I'd love to know how to get my costs down more.

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

#163

Post by wkat4242 »

XorNot wrote: post #150
wkat4242 wrote: post #140

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. 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.

I was just saying this would not be an extinction event. Which it won't be.

The world order is decaying anyway due to all the hardliner world leaders I mentioned, all intent on conflict. But I don't think this has an awful lot to do with the climate issue. More with overpopulation and countries like China getting richer and wanting to play the geopower game.

And yeah it may well be very bad for me but there really isn't anything I can do about it. I stand by my original point that it's not a human extinction-level event though.

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

#164

Post by seanmcdirmid »

quietbritishjim wrote: post #71
remoquete wrote: post #11

I've three kids. It's wonderful, it's exhausting, and it's often terrifying. Being a parent is a painful experience, but so is living life. Would my life be easier and less painful without them? Yes. Would my life be better without them? No, just different. I respect antinatalists, but I chose differently. I chose to bring laughter and joy to this absurd, meaningless Universe we habit, even if for a brief lapse. Is i…

I agree with what you're saying, but it doesn't seem to have much to do with the article. It doesn't suggest that people are having fewer children because they are "antinatalists" or consider having children a "selfish choice". It's right there in the title: they think they just don't have time due to their work/life balance. As I said in another comment, that's more likely to be an economic problem (specifically, ho…

It really isn’t that different. You have to make different work life balance choices when you have kids, increasingly very hard decisions given rising costs (housing, childcare, food, activities, etc…). You also can’t really relax on long weekends anymore unless you are content with large amounts of screen time, it’s not like yesterday when my boomer parents just threw me out of the house and told me to come back around lunch/dinner.

The article is locked down, so I have no idea what it says after the second paragraph. I can imagine though.

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

#165

Post by seanmcdirmid »

lm28469 wrote: post #77
remoquete wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Life with kids has always been problematic.

Less so when you could afford a house, a car, 2 kids and a stay at home wife on a single salary. It was also much easier when people didn't move to foreign countries and/or far away cities for their jobs, losing their family network &c. I'm in my mid 20s, in tech and couldn't afford that at all, I could barely afford my gf being unemployed. I don't have a car and live in a small flat. If I can barely afford a comfort…

The irony is that when you can afford kids in your mid to late 30s, it becomes much harder medically to have them (assuming your partner is similar in age). Lots of people just wait until they are ready, and then find out the window has passed, it’s really frightening.

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

#166

Post by lm28469 »

wkat4242 wrote: post #126
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

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. Humanit…

> That would be perfect for long-term sustainability.

I guess if you don't care about your country or continent legacy that could work yes

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

#167

Post by holoduke »

wegfawefgawefg wrote: post #159
bemusedthrow75 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

its absolutely fixable. the issue is ideology and habit, expectation. rigid. difficult to change. look how much disagreement im getting for even suggesting someone should be spending less than 10k a month on 4 kids. These are resistant responses from people who dont even exhibit the behaviour.

I assume you don't live in one of the tech/finance hubs anywhere in the world. Because really, 10k a month is nothing really special. no fancy car, no fancy house. Just a lot of fixed costs. And for your information. Our daycare is only 2.5 days a week. I take care of my kids 1.5 weekdays and my wife 1 day. Can you imagine daycare a full 5 days a week? that's 2 times more expensive.

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

#168

Post by lm28469 »

wkat4242 wrote: post #161
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest questions: Can we maintain our current tech level with 2 billion people? And if we can't, is that fair to future generations? Aren't we condemning them to a more miserable life? (On the other hand, if 8 billion people leads to destroying the environment, that also leaves them more miserable...)

Of course we can. Even with a lot less. We can automate the hell out of everything :) In fact there's a big concern that there won't be enough work. Even hypercapitalist countries like the US are thinking about UBI now. Food will be a bigger problem but less people also means less food needed.

> We can automate the hell out of everything :)

That's what they told us in the 60s/70s/80s and we're still working as much while our standards are lowering but ok, we'll automagically fix things, we're just waiting for the right time

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

#169

Post by lm28469 »

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.

It mostly depends on what you care about. If you care about excel sheets and mathematical formulas then of course none of it matters in the long term

If you care about quality of life, employment, pensions, shortages, smooth transitions, immigration, it's a whole other story

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

#170

Post by lm28469 »

wkat4242 wrote: post #143
prmoustache wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Eventually the wave of old people is gone and things are back to normal. It's not something we can't overcome.

What do you mean by back to normal ? The African demographic boom, even if we didn't have our own fertility problem, will ensure there will be no back to "normal". History is never about going back to normal

Post reply on HN