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

81–90 of 201 posts

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

#81

Post by wkat4242 »

cassianoleal wrote: post #64
bluescrn wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The idea that you’re inherently better off not having kids is nonsense. We're in a world where we constantly told that we have to give up meat/dairy, powered transport, heating/cooling, and a whole lot more to avert climate catastrophe. I'm surprised there's so few mentions of the incredible destructiveness of having kids (e.g. vs. owning an ICE car or taking a few flights per year)

What's the point of averting climate catastrophe? I thought it was to avoid human extinction. Having kids and no cars helps ensure the continuation of humanity. Turns out there's only one sure way to ensure human extinction, and it's for humans to stop reproducing.

Climate change won't cause human extinction. It will cause destruction of the environment, leading to it being able to support even less people than it does now. Because nature can't keep up with the speed we're changing it.

But human extinction, no. Some areas will even become more habitable.

And humans will only become extinct if everyone stops having kids which won't happen because some people like having them.

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

#82

Post by furyg3 »

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 come from the first list.

My situation as a parent here:

On the cost side, recurring costs for after-school daycare (2x week), school 'contributions' (field trips), violin lessons and rental, gymnastics classes, and normal clothing purchases are €200/month. Daycare is subsidized and we are lucky that we only need two days, but bumping that up to 3 or 4 would not be insane on the cost side. Baby day care was also subsidized, but can get expensive if you are sending them 5x week... it depends on the parent's income. For us subsidies covered about a third of the costs, but we earned well.

The school here takes care of education, with very little homework. It's well-funded, and does not require much extra effort or money from our side. We can be as involved as we want to be.

We are able to use only 2x of day care per week because a) most employers understand the needs of parents but mostly b) by law employers are required to let you reduce your hours to, for example, take care of your kids. We both work a half-day once a week, with another family member helping on the remaining day.

While the Dutch will complain about higher education costs, the costs are reasonable. A 4 year study will cost you around €10k in tuition, total. That 4 year study results in a masters if the student is able / wants to follow a university track.

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

#83

Post by jemmyw »

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,…

It's a different experience for different people. Why wouldn't parent's comment if they enjoy having kids? It's no different than the people who jumped in to state the reasons why they wouldn't have kids, why do they do it? Why did you feel the need to put your comment in, maybe answer that too? I think it's weird how someone always jumps in to comment on how weird it is that some people jump in to comment.

I've got 3 kids. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. Or not recommend it. How the fuck should I know what you want to do or how it'll turn out? I'm glad I had mine and I'm glad we started at 25 instead of 35. Regrets? Some, but if you've none I may not believe you. You can regret things even if you also wouldn't want them to turn out differently.

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

#84

Post by bluescrn »

cassianoleal wrote: post #64
bluescrn wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The idea that you’re inherently better off not having kids is nonsense. We're in a world where we constantly told that we have to give up meat/dairy, powered transport, heating/cooling, and a whole lot more to avert climate catastrophe. I'm surprised there's so few mentions of the incredible destructiveness of having kids (e.g. vs. owning an ICE car or taking a few flights per year)

What's the point of averting climate catastrophe? I thought it was to avoid human extinction. Having kids and no cars helps ensure the continuation of humanity. Turns out there's only one sure way to ensure human extinction, and it's for humans to stop reproducing.

We don't need to stop reproducing entirely, but getting the rate down would surely be beneficial.

We're stuck on a finite planet with diminishing natural resources. Endless growth isn't possible.

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

#85

Post by HPsquared »

formerly_proven wrote: post #79
cpursley wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is a problem of lack of land rather than some inherent material cost. No, this is a problem of poor planning and preventing building up (dense). Plenty of “developed” countries outside of the Anglo world have solved this issue.

I'm not sure about plenty. There's a common structural issue where properties and what you can do with them is controlled by local authorities elected by the locals while locals are also protected from the housing market using rent control. Since the locals already got theirs and experience a lot less of the market pressure non-locals experience, restrictive housing policy follows fairly naturally. This is true for b…

Sounds like a case of "high and low against the middle".

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

#86

Post by cpursley »

formerly_proven wrote: post #79
cpursley wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is a problem of lack of land rather than some inherent material cost. No, this is a problem of poor planning and preventing building up (dense). Plenty of “developed” countries outside of the Anglo world have solved this issue.

I'm not sure about plenty. There's a common structural issue where properties and what you can do with them is controlled by local authorities elected by the locals while locals are also protected from the housing market using rent control. Since the locals already got theirs and experience a lot less of the market pressure non-locals experience, restrictive housing policy follows fairly naturally. This is true for b…

Restrictive housing is mostly a Western European and NA thing.

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

#87

Post by remoquete »

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 doesn't seem to have much to do with the article

I guess most commenters jumped to their own reasons. In that sense, I think it's a natural reaction to the topic.

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

#88

Post by xyzzy4747 »

If everyone was anti-natalist, civilization would collapse, and there would be no work or no life. Surely some logical people can see it's the wrong approach, unless you despise humans in general and want them gone? We're the only species that can create computing or venture into outer space.

Anyways, I have one child and hoping for a second. He has been a total joy for me and my wife since he was born.

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

#89

Post by bemusedthrow75 »

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.

I don't really want to have kids.

I am not an "antinatalist" because of this.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with comfort (or the environment or climate).

I note that the "unto" here is a very interesting word choice that hints at an underlying belief structure that drives your opinion.

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

#90

Post by xyzzy4747 »

wkat4242 wrote: 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.

If there were no humans, the environment would be destroyed when the sun expands.

Humans are the only hope for other species including animals and plants, since we can bring them into outer space and use energy storage or from other parts of the solar system / galaxy to preserve life further.

Post reply on HN