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

Having Kids (2019)

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 323 posts

Re: Having Kids (2019)

#311

Post by subpixel »

jasonkester wrote: post #22

Before having kids, I expected it to be this huge life changing thing. That it would effectively end the part of my life where I was free to do whatever I wanted, and start the part where I was just Daddy, doing nothing except serving my childrens' needs. But that didn't happen. We just carried on being Jason and his partner, but with a baby in tow. I had spent most of my 30s cramming in as much "living" as possible,…

This amounts to “works on my machine”.

I’m happy for you, but your circumstances are unusual and incomparable to most.

Re: Having Kids (2019)

#312

Post by snayan »

coneonthefloor wrote: post #251
tavavex wrote: post #239

> On the other hand, what kind of wimpy ambition do you have if it won't survive having kids? Do you have so little to spare? I don't know, it seems like parenthood asks for a lot to be given up. Younger people like myself are already struggling to live on their own where I am. There's not a lot that can be spared by most of us. To me, having a child means heavily straining your financial safety - here, care for this…

You exist solely to procreate. I could not imagine an emptier life, than one without children.

I could not imagine having such a myopic worldview. Feel for you brother. There's beauty everywhere in life if you open your eyes

Re: Having Kids (2019)

#313

Post by mothballed »

acuozzo wrote: post #303
meitham wrote: post #7

As a father of 3, nothing is more satisfying than raising kids.

Father of three here as well: 11/9/6. I love them and I spend a lot of time with them, but I have no idea what you're talking about. My 11 year old has Level 2 Autism, ADHD, and crippling anxiety. The pediatric psychologist & psychiatrist team we've assembled between Johns Hopkins & Kennedy-Krieger have finally lowered his suicide risk status from high to low last week. My 9 year old has such extreme ADHD that you wo…

If you have easy kids everyone wants to help. If you have difficult kids no one else is going to want to help you, especially if they fight because that's liability they don't need (CPS will blame the caregiver if one of the child is beat up by their own sibling). Also if you have difficult kids not only will no one help, they will damn you for having been a terrible parent for circumstances outside your control, crushing your self esteem even though you're trying harder than perhaps most others. This is part of what makes difficult children exponentially harder. Sucks but that's the reality.

I noticed as soon as our child became better tempered things were 100x easier because suddenly people that were previously out of the picture were willing to look after the child. For every 1% better the child behaves life is 10% easier for everyone.

Re: Having Kids (2019)

#314

Post by foxglacier »

pixl97 wrote: post #225
foxglacier wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kids cost time, not money. So the wealthier you are, the more difficult it is because you probably have less free time. You can pay someone else to raise your kids (daycare/etc.) but then you lose a lot of the value of having kids. This bullshit excuse that somebody can't afford to have kids is proven wrong by the fact that poorer people have more kids than rich people. You can even be unemployed. Gone are the days o…

Um, wtf is this rambling statement that doesn't seem to be based in any kind of truth at all? In the past both poor and rich tended to have tons of kids, this is because kids tended to die young regardless of being rich or poor. Then you're trying to compare massive social changes in the west that occurred around the same time. For example womens suffrage, women being allowed to work, sexual revolutions and birth con…

Yea, educated women have fewer kids because they prefer to spend their time making money, and money isn't what you need to raise kids.

Re: Having Kids (2019)

#315

Post by 1718627440 »

drfloyd51 wrote: post #214
socalgal2 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still judge parents, because I compare them to other parents. Good parents = kids not 100% glued to phones/tablets, social around friends and family, not throwing tantrums at 8-16 yrs old. Bad parents = kids always throwing tantrums, kids basically always getting their way because they've learned parents will always give in, parents and kids 100% ignoring each other. One set of friends - I go to visit, I play with…

Trust me. Don’t judge. Even if you compare to other parents, you are judging the reference-parents. If you have data over time you can draw conclusions on things you want to try as a parent.

Giving young children a tablet to silence them is still on the parents, irregardless of how the child turns out later.

Re: Having Kids (2019)

#316

Post by 1718627440 »

Balgair wrote: post #215
pimlottc wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the impression I hear from my many intentionally childless friends. They take the negative behavior - the screaming, tantrums, chaos - as the norm. It sounds like you always wanted kids. I don't say this to criticize - it's great that those who want to start families do so - but I don't think your experience is universal.

Oh then it's even worse ! As again, only the more well behaved kids are going out in public.

> only the more well behaved kids are going out in public.

How would that work? Do you think they have life-long domiciliary arrest? All children need to go to school or like to occasionally walk or go to a shop.

Re: Having Kids (2019)

#317

Post by cknoxrun »

com2kid wrote: post #232
cknoxrun wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing I'll add is that you never know what people are going through. Both of my children have pretty intense ADHD, and when I went through my divorce I definitely leaned into too much screen time for a while. It wasn't permanent though, and I managed to get back closer to the ideal you speak of (but as a single parent, it took a lot of processing of guilt to find a balance that worked). I've decided it's saf…

> I've decided it's safer to just never judge, that parent you see pushing the toddler around in the cart might indeed be a terrible parent, or they might be going through grief and at their breaking point. Agreed, I should have clarified that I'm speaking more about friends and family, people's whose situation can be spoken to directly. I have friends with neurotypical kids who still hand the kids tablets at restaur…

Thanks for the clarification, I see where you are coming from and definitely agree it's a real problem.

I'm proud to say for myself that devices never leave the home now (and mine stays in my pocket except for explicit communication needs), and we are able to fully connect on road trips, dinners, and other outings. It's freeing, and I always tell the kids, that being device free means we will actually remember these moments.

Re: Having Kids (2019)

#318

Post by xyzelement »

jen729w wrote: post #47

Kids aren’t for everyone. Please don’t guilt-trip people for not having them. (I know this article isn’t doing that.) https://wearechildfree.com/ Disclosure: Zoë is my cousin.

No guilt trip but hard to say this is a timeless and universal approach.

Re: Having Kids (2019)

#319

Post by ergocoder »

briHass wrote: post #269
ergocoder wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming the income stays the same, I'd happily swap places. I suspect many people would. There are 2 further points: 1. I'd say the ideal setting is for both parents to work and hire a sitter even though it might financially net the same (or affordably negative) as having one stay-at-home parent. Because a human needs community and diverse things to do, not just one thing over and over everyday for years. Both of th…

While stay at home parenting isn't, and shouldn't have to be, for everyone, it also isn't somehow a downgrade from being in the working world. If anything is doing something 'over and over', it's trudging to some job to push papers/keyboard keys around for 8+ hours.

Taking care of kids without a sitter means you have to watch the kid 24h/day. Every waking moment needs to be supervised.

> some job to push papers/keyboard keys around for 8+ hours.

There are tons of socializing during the work time. Nobody sits and types for 8 hours a day without moving.

Re: Having Kids (2019)

#320

Post by lou1306 »

matsemann wrote: post #186
lou1306 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My problem with that problem is that, well, people who have kids definitionally know (better?) about having them. Like being able to experience a book in its original version vs a translation. It's okay if you don't want to learn Spanish, but when people discuss the struggles and delights of reading Cien Años de Soledad they're not necessarily being arrogant, just stating their lived experience.

But do you also go around and claim everyone that hasn't read that book in Spanish is losing out in life, or do you also recognize it's just not for everyone?

Well again, definitionally they are. But life is all about losing out on this or that, so.
Post reply on HN