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

91–100 of 201 posts

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

#91

Post by bemusedthrow75 »

wegfawefgawefg wrote: post #41
holoduke wrote: post #8

I have 4 kids. Running my own business helps because of the flexibility. But the costs of living is something i did not expected to be so high. 3k per month for daycare/afterschool. Memberships, food, clothing, electronics etc. expensive housing, insurances. We easily spend 8,10k per month without saving anything. Nevertheless I love to have kids. Best investment ever.

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.

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

#92

Post by menschmanfred »

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.

You could have asked my why I think it is selfish.

I believe creating new life is playing 'god'.

It's easier to never exist than life life.

This has nothing to do what you thought

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

#94

Post by xyzzy4747 »

ben_w wrote: post #37
notfried wrote: post #18

For those of you who decided not to have kids in your 20s-30s, and are now in your 40s+, when changing that decision now becomes increasingly more difficult: did you regret it? Did your position of “I want to live my life, I don’t want the hassle or the cost, or there are too many humans already, or something else”, did that position change or weaken? Asking for a friend :)

I've just turned 40, and I'm currently childless, but not because that was my goal. Twice wanted to settle down with a woman, but I wasn't her Mr Right. I'm still friends with the second, but she's (metaphorically) married to her activism; she and I split just as I moved to Germany which was itself just before the pandemic. Then I ended up with a boyfriend, but medical tech isn't quite there yet for Mpreg :P

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

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

#95

Post by menschmanfred »

neoberg wrote: post #60
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.

Not having kids is selfish. Most of the worlds social systems depend on new generations of workers. I'm not only talking about paying taxes and contributions etc. But if not enough people have kids, there won't be enough doctors, engineers or cleaners when the same people get older.

That's not a good reason for the new human it's only a good and easy reason for the existing humans.

To create their future workers/slaves.

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

#96

Post by menschmanfred »

anonymousDan wrote: post #40
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.

What nonsense. Having kids is not selfish.

And have you ever spend time on thinking about your conclusion?

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

#97

Post by supersrdjan »

wkat4242 wrote: post #38
supersrdjan wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The environmental argument against kids insults me (not that you should care). As if it's a binary choice between preserving the environment and preserving our species. I like to think that humans of tomorrow will find ways to solve problems we don't yet know how, so that we can save the environment and our species :) That said, here's a fine poem in support of your angle: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/48419…

It's not as if less people having kids leads to humanity becoming extinct. We're still growing way too fast. Some people will just want them and that's fine. It's just something that was previously seen as a virtue (or for example for Catholics almost a holy priority) is now becoming a hobby. And if not everyone takes up that hobby we can be sustainable for a lot longer. Even a population decline wouldn't be bad afte…

Right, I overstated the implication. More people deciding not to have children does not lead to extinction. It's just that when people say things like "not having kids is good for environment" it comes off as a moral prescription that ought to apply to everyone, and hence those who violate it are the bad guys (selfishly acting to harm the environment). And yet if sustainability -- rather than self-extinction -- is the goal, we need a mix of both types of people.

Am I wrong to interpret it like that?

The ones who insist on having children as an ultimate virtue, I find them to be just as wrong.

Either choice is fine, and the moral objections to either one are unreasonable.

Edit: edited to expand the last sentence.

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

#98

Post by fileeditview »

bluescrn wrote: post #84
cassianoleal wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The areas of the world where reproduction rates are highest care the least about this sentiment. For many reasons..

Maybe we should just accept that some things auto regulate. It's the way of nature.

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

#99

Post by the_third_wave »

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…

> While the Dutch will complain about higher education costs

Being a Dutchman myself I'll just put this down to the following piece of Dutch wisdom: Ik klaag, dus ik besta [1], a derivation of Descartes' first principle.

[1] ...which translates to I complain, therefore I am

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

#100

Post by Gud »

“Deeply invested in having successful careers”, yes of course, because rent is too expensive for people in their prime birthing years, and it’s not getting cheaper.

So what else are we supposed to do but grind it out and hope things get better

Post reply on HN