15 ms·

I have been lucky enough to be able to work and live in several countries around the world. One thing in common I noticed in all these places is that guys and g

I have been lucky enough to be able to work and live in several countries around the world. One thing in common I noticed in all these places is that guys and girls don't have time and don't want to commit to a stable long relation. They invest pretty much themselves and their time in their career, traveling , parties, dogs, cats and bitcoins :) ! The mantra is to get rich and retire at 40 years old! Travel the world and have fun. By the time they are somewhat satisfied with theirs status they have reached ~35 years old. At that point is more difficult to find a person and accept to share your life and habits with them. They are so used to live their own lives that they have extremely hard time compromising any part of it. I think the society has (wrongly) evolved towards an individualist model at the expenses of families. I have noticed that people have been more and more intolerant to family flying with kids. It is hard to find kids friendly restaurants, hotels and resorts. People invite you to parties and kids are always not welcome. Not to mention also the additional cost associated with having a family. But you know what ? I am so happy every day when I come home and my kids run towards me and we play and have fun. I and my wife coudln't be happier! A piece of advice, stop running, take time off and think about your life beyond work and money. Traveling is fun but is way more fun and interesting when you can share it with some one you care about, like your family!

xenospn 7y ago
I think having kids is scientifically proven to make you unhappy and greatly increase your stress levels. It’s no wonder people just put off having kids until they can, or pass on having them altogether.
- 1zee 7y ago
  That's a pretty general, sweeping claim to make without a source.
  - crooked-v 7y ago
    Current data suggests that net unhappiness is associated with raising children, but it's because of the cost of raising children and not the children themselves. https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2019/02/cost-raising-kids-parents-happiness/583699/ https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2019/02/cost-rais...
    - Barrin92 7y ago
      >but it's because of the cost of raising children and not the children themselves that's the equivalent of saying "if I control for skin colour I observe no discrimination". The cost of raising children both financially and in time, is intrinsically linked to raising children. It is often asserted that spousal relationships suffer from the routine chores that come with raising children, and that is not going away. Don't control for the thing you want to measure.
      - gubbrora 7y ago
        It suggests that "children leads to unhappiness" is a property of how society is currently set up and not a universal truth.
  - sharkmerry 7y ago
    i agree, i found this from quick search.. somewhat supports him/her. Havent delved into the studies wholly yet https://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/why-does-anyone-have-children/ https://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/why-does-anyo...
- jerkstate 7y ago
  Conflating happiness (immediate) with satisfaction (long-term) is exactly the problem, nicely illustrated.
  - Toine 7y ago
    I wish I could upvote a 100 times.
- ogig 7y ago
  Anecdote; my kid is my greatest source of happiness.
- biohax2015 7y ago
  If it's scientifically proven, there should be some research backing it up. Do you have a link to that research? You cannot just say things like this without providing evidence.
- rayiner 7y ago
  It's very complicated. Having kids at home makes you less happy (because they're work). But men who have had kids are significantly happier than men who never had kids once the kids are out of the house: https://ifstudies.org/blog/does-having-children-make-people-happier-in-the-long-run https://ifstudies.org/blog/does-having-children-make-people-... > By the time the 2016 survey rolled around, fathers were 40% more likely than childless men to see themselves as very happy. "Happiness" is also not the right concept here. Having kids doesn't necessarily make you "happy." But it's something people almost universally want: https://news.gallup.com/poll/164618/desire-children-norm.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/164618/desire-children-norm.asp.... By age 45, 86% of people have had kids, and only 6% of those wish they had not had kids. By contrast, out of those who didn't have kids, more than half wish they did. Even more remarkably, among all adults age 45+, as many people wish they had five or more kids as wish they had no kids (11%). There is pretty much no other life choice (college, career, etc.) that almost every body does that almost nobody regrets.
  - aianus 7y ago
    > only 6% of those wish they had not had kids It's very socially unacceptable to admit you regret having had your kids. Even to an anonymous stranger conducting a phone poll. I am much more inclined to believe studies that ask for self-reported happiness and compare to life events / states like childlessness without directly asking "do you regret your kids". From what I understand, having children is negatively correlated with happiness in those sorts of studies.
    - halter73 7y ago
      > I am much more inclined to believe studies that ask for self-reported happiness and compare to life events / states like childlessness without directly asking "do you regret your kids". Did you reply to the wrong comment? That's why the parent poster led with this quote from IFS: > By the time the 2016 survey rolled around, fathers were 40% more likely than childless men to see themselves as very happy.
      - aianus 7y ago
- kaitai 7y ago
  The "science" you're referring to shows that parenting makes people less "happy" in any given moment while doing it and more "content" overall, more "satisfied" in older age. Moreover, there are significant country-by-country differences in these stats that seem to be tied to availability of high-quality, low-cost childcare and healthcare. One place to look for some overview of some of these studies is https://contemporaryfamilies.org/brief-parenting-happiness/ https://contemporaryfamilies.org/brief-parenting-happiness/
  - WalterGR 7y ago
    Why did you put science in scare quotes?
    - jfengel 7y ago
      I think the intention is a quote rather than a scare quote. It's a little awkward to quote a single word like that. In that circumstance the following words "... you're referring to" serve the same function. But it does highlight the notion of "you were looking for science, here is science".
    - Goronmon 7y ago
      Probably referencing the use of the phrase "scientifically proven" and doubting the assertion being made and that there is in fact "science" that backs it up.
  - throw0101a 7y ago
    It's the cost not the kids: > Having children makes people happier—if they can afford it. * https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2019/02/cost-raising-kids-parents-happiness/583699/ https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2019/02/cost-rais...
- Ascetik 7y ago
  That's the biggest crock I've ever read on HN. Where did this "science" come from? A bunch of self-obsessed journalists I'm sure or maybe /r/childfree? The people who are unhappy with kids are the people who are unhappy, depressed and bitter to begin with, lacking all empathy. You have to be a pretty self-absorbed individual to not love the innocence and charm of children. Every person I know with a family loves their children to death and are very content and happy. Happiness consists in pursuing the ultimate unchanging good and increasing in virtue, nothing passing in this life can give you ultimate everlasting happiness. It is a philosophical, metaphysical and theological question, not a question of children, free-time or money. Children are a good thing, but they're not the ultimate object whereby one becomes happy.
- brianmc21 7y ago
  I feel as though having children will make a lot of people very happy. But there is also a significant part(>1%) of the population that would be miserable. I believe a lot of the unhappiness is often from someone who was pressured into a choice they didn't critically think about or didn't want but caved in. Even if the pool of people is small the experience could be quite negative. Where as all the people who always wanted them will be happy. I took care of my brother and sisters a lot as a child and it made it very clear that I never wanted children.
  - moorhosj 7y ago
    ==I took care of my brother and sisters a lot as a child and it made it very clear that I never wanted children.== Being a parent is not the same as taking care of your siblings. Using the experience of one to justify your decisions in another is short-sighted. How many parents have you ever heard say, "I wish I didn't have kids"?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - vict00ms 7y ago
      I've heard a lot of parents say something along those lines, though usually softened a bit: "I love my kids but if I had to do it all over again I wouldn't have had them."
      - Melchizedek 7y ago
        They love their kids but they would have preferred that their kids never existed? That doesn't sound like love.
        projektir 7y ago
        Well, this reaction explains why people don't like to say it.
    - 7y ago
- zaccus 7y ago
  There's no way to objectively measure happiness, so no that hasn't been proven. Personally, I've found having a kid to be less stressful, less expensive, and more rewarding than my college/career experience. I'm happier now than I ever was before. Yeah it's hard sometimes, but what isn't?
- camelNotation 7y ago
  I have less than five kids, but more than one kid. My kids cause me a lot of stress. The burden of knowing I have to deal with them and their energetic, ridiculous antics every day when I get home really drains me. I don't really have time to exercise anymore because from sun-up to sundown I am dealing with them, so I'm slightly overweight and out of shape in a way I was not before I had kids. My diet isn't as diverse as it was before I had kids either because I can't go to the same places I used to or take the time to prepare what I used to prepare. I've stayed in the job I have now for longer than I should just because I worry about keeping a steady salary, paying my bills, and caring for my kids more than I ever worried about those things before. I don't spend a lot of money on self-care or personal enjoyment anymore because I need to save it in case something goes wrong and I need to spend the money on them. Am I less happy? YES. I am less happy than before. But if I was given the choice to go back, I wouldn't. I wouldn't even consider it. Not even for a millisecond. I don't know why and I really don't need to know why, but having kids is just better than being happy. I don't want to be happy, I want to be a good dad. It's true that being a parent makes you less happy, but it also makes happiness irrelevant (for the most part). It probably has something to do with evolution.
  - StreamBright 7y ago
    Well, you have to make time for things you want to do. What we have done raising our kids is that we have one parent going to the gym, the other one is taking care of kids. You can do it if you are committed. Do not give up! Yes, it is rewarding to be a parent at the end of the day when they fall asleep. :)
  - criddell 7y ago
    > But if I was given the choice to go back, I wouldn't. I wouldn't even consider it. There's a speech in the movie Parenthood [1] that expresses a lot of what you just said. With a kid (or kids), the highs are higher, the lows lower. Some want to be on a roller coaster, others are happier on a merry-go-round. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z18vJwmxFFY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z18vJwmxFFY
    - camelNotation 7y ago
- avip 7y ago
  Happiness is overrated.
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    And Purpose is underrated.
- antisthenes 7y ago
  Leaving aside the fact that you have not substantiated your claim, it could very well be that having kids in America makes you miserable, because the safety net is gutted or non-existent. There is almost no maternal/paternal leave, health care costs are astronomical, so are child care costs, which are almost necessary, because the normal multi-generational family has been systematically destroyed over the last half-century, both with advertising and economic pressure. Not to mention the lack of compromising skills in both partners, which has been exacerbated by identity politics. So yes, in context, maybe having kids is miserable* *with caveats and not everywhere.
- umvi 7y ago
  That's like saying it's scientifically proven that people who invest are poorer than people who hoard their cash (and don't invest). True in the short term, false in the long term.
- joshuamcginnis 7y ago
  Wouldn't that also contradict the biological imperative to pass on our genes? If having children had an overall and prolonged negative impact on your stress levels, it would also impede humans' ability to effectively procreate since stress has a direct impact on life expectancy and fertility. I can understand that in the short-term, that might be the case, but over a longer period (say the last 10k years) it does not appear to be true.
  - olalonde 7y ago
    The stronger "biological imperative" is to have sex; birth control is quite a recent invention. And once you had kids, it doesn't matter that your life expectancy or fertility drops a bit because your genes are already passed on.
- tracker1 7y ago
  IIRC, married couples with children have some of the highest happiness indexes of the entire world.
- asdff 7y ago
  Having kids takes a lot of time and money. If you work till 5 you need to pay for childcare, which isn't cheap at all and might even be akin to doubling your rent. Mom is also working so you can't just unload domestic work and childcare to someone else to worry about. If you are entry level chances are you need to get there before the boss and stay there after if you ever want to not be entry level, and work weekends during busy season, so even that 40hr week can go up to 50-60. If you are a woman asking for maternity leave in an entry level job could jeopardize your entire career trajectory. Even in superficially liberal SF, VC firms have been known to discriminate against women entrepreneurs just from the possibility that they might be pregnant one day. People can scarcely keep housing costs below 30% of their net income. People are waiting until they have more money and a job that actually gives them time to raise a family. The real reason why people are putting off having kids is that it's not 1950 anymore.
KevinS626 7y ago
It's easier to sell to lonely individuals than a satisfied family. Hence all the crazy pressure to work more and be less... human.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  You sure? People with families tend to spend more money (out of necessity). It's easier for people without kids to save up more money.
  - wry_discontent 7y ago
    It's easier to meet your basic survival needs as an individual, and thus you have more disposable income for nonsense commodities. Everybody I know who is single and has a good job buys tons of junk they don't need (or often even want). It's the norm.
    - prophesi 7y ago
      Yeah I was literally doing some research on an electric unicycle that I probably won't use too often.
    - SergeAx 7y ago
      It's a variant of norm. Another variant is to throw away anything one doesn't use for more than a year, rent-not-buy most of entertaining stuff, including musical instruments, game consoles, fancy cars and dresses, holiday villas and yachts. Actually, hoarding and junk collecting is a prerogative of the poor.
      - badpun 7y ago
        Even renting "fancy cars and dresses, holiday villas and yachts" sounds like an opulent lifestyle, where someone has a lot of disposable income and is finding was to entertain himself with the extra cash.
        7y ago
jansho 7y ago
Mm, a radical idea these days! :) Lately I have come to realise that searching for the “cultured, polished being” and the “ideal life” actually made me feel even more insecure and trapping myself to my comfort zone. Oh yes doing a marathon is really stretching me. So is trying out new food. Watching a horrific war drama ... from a sofa. They’re all things that _I_ want, that _I_ control. When I get thrown into something totally random, especially when it’s stupid — like why is that kid crying? It’s just a sticker! — it distresses me a lot. Which is silly! Life is meant to be full of all sorts of randomness and silliness! So bizarrely, I am trying to do more normal things now. Like cleaning the house manually, talking to the old man next door, falling in love. All feels uncomfortable, but I feel more alive too!
jniedrauer 7y ago
Bringing a child into the world to increase my own personal happiness, when nothing else I could do has such a direct and massive climate impact, is not something I can justify personally. Not to mention, my child would have to live to see the impacts of climate change. There is coming a point (it has already passed, in my opinion), where we can no longer justify our purpose for existence as "creating more humans."
- malvosenior 7y ago
  Aside from eradicating the human race, any changes to climate will have to be driven by humans. Someone’s child will help solve the problem. It could be your’s.
  - jniedrauer 7y ago
    There is no shortage of humans who want to have children. Not all 7 billion of us can have a family.
    - malvosenior 7y ago
      Indeed not everyone will reproduce but the future will be exclusively filled by people who’s parents did.
      - jjdjr0odo7 7y ago
        Ya can keep cutting this up; it’ll be exclusively filled by kids that survive. Infant mortality rates and suicide among adults are up. Parents have to consider raising successful adults is not guaranteed. Maybe the measure for loneliness is just wrong? Lonely relative to traditional values family model? Which had problems with depression, infidelity, parental anxiety 24/7... in other words, rife with emotional dysfunctions of its own. Are we concerned with decline in family because it’s the best model for organizing communal life or because we’re used to it? It feels different and weird, which can feel sad, but allows other models for socializing to explore.
- 7y ago
40acres 7y ago
I heard someone describe this as the "capstone" vs "conerstone" model. Previous generations got married and had kids much earlier, and built their lives off of that cornerstone. When it comes to me personally and my peers, we see marriage and children more as a capstone -- something to be done once our student loan is paid, or when we're ready to put a down payment on a house, when we get that promotion, etc.
- sdegutis 7y ago
  I know two sisters who each got married. The older one practiced worldly prudence, courted during high school, got engaged at beginning of college, and waited almost a decade until after her fiancé graduated before they got married and started to have children. But now he can't get a job with his degree (pharmacist), she works at some retail job as a manager, and the whole family lives with her parents. He's in >$100,000 debt and briefly went to a medical facility during a nervous breakdown after realizing he realistically can't pay it back. The younger sister had no such ambitions. Courted in high school, got engaged, married right out of high school, immediately started a family, he works at Walmart making higher than average money, and she stays at home raising the kids. They also live with her parents in the same house. True stories. This all happened over the past 7 years. I would say the prudence of the second couple vastly outshines the "prudence" of the first couple.
  - sgslo 7y ago
    I'm not sure your story proves a whole lot. By the way you phrase it, the outcome of the older sister hinged upon the husband failing to get a job as a pharmacist. If he had successfully landed a job, the outcome of your story would be very different. The same argument could be made for the younger sister. What happens when Walmart downsizes, and the husband is out of job with a background only in retail? I'm not sure it is worth citing or criticizing the 'prudence' of either couple.
    - rhizome 7y ago
      Plus, I'm under the impression that "can't get a job as a pharmacist" is a rare problem.
sdegutis 7y ago
Pope Francis talks a lot about this in Amoris Laetitia[1] on the topic of Love in the Family. I've only finished the first two chapters but so far he has talked a lot about the same points you mentioned, and brought a lot of insights. My memory is failing me right now on specifics, but it's a very useful and insightful read for anyone who has a family, even if you're not Catholic. http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia.html http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations...
stronglikedan 7y ago
> I have noticed that people have been more and more intolerant to family flying with kids. This alone would encourage me to fly with my kids as often as possible.
- ecoled_ame 7y ago
  You sound mean, and too prone to burning fossil fuels to jet you and your family's fat asses around the world for no particular benefit to humanity.
  - stronglikedan 7y ago
    Thank you for the super-constructive and totally-not-mean reply. Have the day you deserve! :-)
Nagyman 7y ago
A lot of people have kids _for themselves_. There are a lot of other endeavours one can pursue that will bring happiness. I think where we fail as a society, is in teaching ourselves how to find those pursuits, surround ourselves with friends, and avoid loneliness. > The mantra is to get rich and retire at 40 Hrm, I question the circle of people you're surrounded by. Many millennials are struggling to afford the basics, let alone travel or have a family! This is a contentious and potentially unpopular opinion, but I posit that having children borders on unethical at this point in history. We've wrecked the planet and have growing anti-intellectual culture. I'm happy you're happy though.
- curious_fella1 7y ago
  edit: That seems a little extreme and defeatist IMO.
- maneshi 7y ago
  And whose tax money will be looking after you in your old age, when you have no family of your own to take care of you? The children of those ‘unethical’ people you tediously condescend so proudly up on your high horse.
  - AlexandrB 7y ago
    And whose tax money is paying for the schools that are educating those children at the moment? Oh right... This is a really bad argument. Especially in countries that have a lot more support for parents than the US.
    - maneshi 7y ago
      Yes, exactly. Isn’t that precisely the point? Paying it forward, so in turn we will be supported when we reach old age?
- hindsightbias 7y ago
  > and have growing anti-intellectual culture. From this thread, it would appear to be baked-in as a function of self-selection. One might argue intellectuals have an obligation to procreate.
Barrin92 7y ago
>I think the society has (wrongly) evolved towards an individualist model at the expenses of families. that's a wrong dichotomy. There's no fundamental reason why 35 year olds don't socialize, or why our education system stops at 25, why we have no communal institutions, and so on. The alternative isn't just between individualism and the family, what is needed is building out communities in ways that gives people the ability to connect in new ways that reflect our changes in work and living arrangements. As the article mentions the UK has introduced a minister for the problem of loneliness. What we need is to put policies into place that develop new modes of social life and to expand the public sphere. The nuclear family isn't really that attractive any more for a reason, so just asking to go back isn't really a great idea. People like the freedom that comes with having no or fewer children, being able to move, and being financially independent.
- swejo 7y ago
  That is an interesting opinion. Can you expound on what you would propose. My experience is that clubs or meetups often don't forge all that close relationships. Another example I could think of which is more positive is co-ops where people lived in a door room type experience with community rules and chore responsibilities (cooking, cleaning, maintenance). But I think many adult American's would think of a co-op as to close to a commune.
  - Barrin92 7y ago
    Coop living for the elderly I think would be a fairly good start, I'm German and we have some of those communities in the south, it's usually like a small village where older residents take care of each other with the assistance of some company who provides caregivers, but people enjoy much greater autonomy than they do in their homes. It's not only cheaper, but also more dignified and people seem to be happier. For younger people I think coops are a great thing too. In the US implementing policies that discourages single family housing and promotes closer connection between workspace and living space I think would help. If you live and work in walking distance of your chess club going there is more likely compared to someone living in the suburbs. For communities there's also time banking which has gotten a little attention in recent years. Essentially paying people in a special currency for reciprocal help in their local communities that can only be exchanged locally, and everyone earns the same based on how long they work. Basically an egalitarian approach to fill in the gap where markets are too anonymous to provide meaning or where they don't exist at all. And then I think government and companies should do much more to promote education for middle aged and older people. And not just online learning, but physical interaction. In my experience educational institutions are some of the best places to make new social connections.
roymurdock 7y ago
i'm 26 and have traveled a fair bit and lived/worked in the US and UK young people go to the cities for high status, high paying jobs to pay off student loans and/or save up for the future in an increasingly uncertain world competition is extremely high for these jobs, compounded 1000x due to the rise and use of social media among my generation, which always suggests that next thing to buy or that next vacation to go on, either from corporations or your "friends" (it's hard to tell which is which after a while) - get that raise so you can unlock the next tier of stuff you see wealthy people doing gone are the days of getting an intellectually stimulating and well paying job with IBM/Ford/GE and building your career off it while having a family young, people my age usually stay in a job for 2/3 years then on to the next startup/job/"adventure" (if they have the right degree to get a job in the first place) then there's a completely separate cohort of people my age who have settled outside the city, gotten married, looking to have kids in low cost of living areas and figure out job stuff as they go (very risky unless you own your own biz or work for a family biz) dating is a similarly competitive game in the big cities, one that warrants its own 10 page essay per city based on the conversations i've had with single friends in LA/NY/London/SF the gap between generations is growing more and more pronounced/quicker due to technology grouping similar people together and amplifying their cultures...it takes effort but you need to continuously bridge this gap with those younger than you, otherwise their needs, desires, motivations will be completely alien to you - i almost don't understand the fortnite meme generation, but i make efforts to most young people are acutely aware of life outside work and money (especially asians/immigrants due to pressure from conservative parents), but it's getting harder and harder to find the middle class/balance between earning enough to have a family comfortably and affording a place to live while keeping your job options healthy/open for whatever BS is coming next down the economic chain
- rewgs 7y ago
  28 here, and I agree completely. Nice point about the people who try to figure the job thing out while taking the more “traditional” path — I feel like that’s a sizable part of our generation that’s usually ignored. Also, yeah, I don’t get the memes that my high school niece sends me at all. Their sense of humor is completely foreign to me.
- 7y ago
StreamBright 7y ago
And on the child-parent relationship front, we are not doing much better. As a result, kid going to schools that make them fit in cutting out creativity. It is much more rewarding to home school your kids and spends time with them bith in terms of their success later on and emotional development.
jbigelow76 7y ago
I have noticed that people have been more and more intolerant to family flying with kids. I think we hear about the bad stuff, some flight attendant or passenger complains, and the logical conclusion of a family with a crying baby is booted is the end result. My counter-anecdote is the exact opposite, my fourteen month old daughter cried the majority of our 3.5 hour return flight and she was quietest (not quiet but quietest) was when I was standing and holding her in the middle of the aisle. Any dirty looks, and I scanned for them occasionally, were non-existent (or I missed them and they never vocalized) and most people either had noise-cancelling headphones or just rolled with it. When we apologized for the noise there was a lot of "Oh ours our teenagers now, we've been there, you're ok!" Some of it maybe the bigger stink they make the longer it all takes, but a lot of it is probably shared communal experiences. If some baby was wailing their lungs off next to me on a plane, I'd roll with it, the parent(s) is having a far tougher time of it then I am.
- genema 7y ago
  Same observation here. I've never seen anyone give dirty looks to any crying kids / babies on a plane. Most people are closing their eyes / sleeping or have their headphones on doing whatever. I mean, there are so many solutions to a crying kid (for the observer) that there's no reason to get upset about it (and I haven't seen this being the case at all).
umvi 7y ago
You even have movies promoting this lifestyle... La La Land anyone?
wetpaws 7y ago
I believe what you described is called 'survivor bias'.
kleiba 7y ago
Sorry, but I call baloney. I know you're just describing your personal impression and don't claim them to be universally true. But allow me to present some evidence, er, anecdote to the contrary: I have also traveled the world and lived on three continents. I met lots of cool people and was lucky enough to make friends with some of them in all the places that I visited. I never observed the same as you apparently did, namely that they invested themselves in nothing but their career, traveling, parties, etc. As a matter of fact, coming to think of it, a lot of the people I know (most of them college age) were also from abroad and made sure to stay involved with the family business back home as much as they could. Also, a lot of my friends were actually couples, showing that they cared for more than just work and individual leisure. Some of them got married since. Of course, differences may be due to a number of reasons. What area of work you're in, for example. What geographical location you're in. And naturally, you probably tend to make friends with people that are to some degree similar in some respect. Also, there's varying degrees of peer pressure to like the same things if you want to be part of the in-crowd (or any crowd you like, really). Oh, and let's not forget: cultural background. So I don't think you can generalize as much as you did in your post.
ismail-khan 7y ago
> They are so used to live their own lives that they have extremely hard time compromising any part of it. Reminds me of this passage from The Brothers Karamazov: > “I heard exactly the same thing, a long time ago to be sure, from a doctor,” the elder remarked. “He was then an old man, and unquestionably intelligent. He spoke just as frankly as you, humorously, but with a sorrowful humor. ‘I love mankind,’ he said, ‘but I am amazed at myself: the more I love mankind in general, the less I love people in particular, that is, individually, as separate persons. In my dreams,‘ he said, ‘I often went so far as to think passionately of serving mankind, and, it may be, would really have gone to the cross for people if it were somehow suddenly necessary, and yet I am incapable of living in the same room with anyone even for two days, this I know from experience. As soon as someone is there, close to me, his personality oppresses my self-esteem and restricts my freedom. In twenty-four hours I can begin to hate even the best of men: one because he takes too long eating his dinner, another because he has a cold and keeps blowing his nose. I become the enemy of people the moment they touch me,’ he said. ‘On the other hand, it has always happened that the more I hate people individually, the more ardent becomes my love for humanity as a whole.’” The speaker goes on to say: > Love in dreams thirsts for immediate action, quickly performed, and with everyone watching. Indeed, it will go as far as the giving even of one’s life, provided it does not take long but is soon over, as on stage, and everyone is looking on and praising. Whereas active love is labor and perseverance, and for some people, perhaps, a whole science.
- hi41 7y ago
  Nice quote. Does the author tell why he ends up hating a human when he loves humanity. I think I too have that problem. I look at all the TED talks and think I should love humanity but I have a bad husband to my wife and a bad father to my kids. tia.
  - ativzzz 7y ago
    I think it's not anything wrong with you per se, nor have I read the book, but I think it's because like the author says, dealing with people on an individual basis requires personal sacrifice. Particularly, emotional sacrifice. Allowing people to get a cold without letting it bother you. Making compromises and being forced to do things you don't want, while not being able to do what you want, on a daily micro level. Whereas tasks that show your love for humanity are more detached from actual individuals. Curing cancer requires you to interact with lab equipment and microorganisms more than humans. Sure your opportunity costs here may be playing video games or traveling, but they are less emotional costs and more material costs. Paying emotional tolls is difficult, and from my experience, many people are simply incapable of paying them. I mean, they are or may be capable, but they would have to change the way they act or behave, and they are not willing to do so. I think there's a genetic component to it.
rb808 7y ago
> I have been lucky enough to be able to work and live in several countries around the world. One thing in common I noticed in all these places is that guys and girls don't have time and don't want to commit to a stable long relation. This could be selective though. If you're living in expat communities in global hubs, everyone knows people are there for only a short time, so its not worth investing in long term commitment.
SergeAx 7y ago
> They are so used to live their own lives that they have extremely hard time compromising any part of it. I say that when someone having extremely hard time doing something, he/she just doesn't need that something hard enough. Most of the people rarely have hard time eating or drinking or watching interesting movie or spending time with friends. Before XX century it was extremely hard to live alone, unless one have stable source of income or an inheritance. For lay people family was just a question of survival. Children was the only recipe of aging in dignity. It is still valid in XXI century, but now there are other ways to live one's life. Forties is not an age of retirement, but a most active age of reaping rewards and even starting a new ventures. There are other means of self realization besides family and children. I don't see anything particularly bad about it.
ramraj07 7y ago
Good news is there are still people who get married and have kids. Bad news is they're definitely the less introspective (for lack of a less offensive word) than the ones that don't get married. My interpretation is that we finally have the freedom from cultural norms to really do whatever we please, but with great freedom comes great responsibility, not just to society but to our own long-term selves. Perhaps these people you talk about have chosen poorly, very poorly indeed, with this freedom. Nothing to do but advise the ones who might listen, and build a moat (physical or mental) that can protect you and your loved ones from them when shit hits the fan.
tracker1 7y ago
Along a similar note... kids are for the young. When you're in your 20's it's MUCH easier to play with young kids and at least try to keep up as it is when you're in your 40's. There's also something to be said for averting hookup culture and actually trying to build a relationship as opposed to ejecting at the first sign of inconvenience. I say both of these things as a twice divorced 40-something that hasn't had kids of his own and deeply regrets it.
- duderific 7y ago
  FWIW I'm 50 and have an almost 5-year-old and almost 1-year-old. So far I'm keeping up with them OK. I am a bit worried about having an 18 year old and being 68 though. We'll see how it goes.
  - leetcrew 7y ago
    my dad was 45 when I was born and 47 when my brother was born. maybe he didn't have as much energy as some of the younger dads when I was a kid. but on the other hand he was able to retire while I was in high school, so he was able to spend a lot more time with my brother and I before we moved out.
genema 7y ago
Can you give examples of how people have become more intolerant of families flying with kids? Every flight I've been on where there was a kid crying the whole time, nobody so much as flinched. I think people understand that kids cry, and the situation is only worsened in a pressurized cabin. I'm curious what specific experiences you had that made you make that statement?

xenospn 7y ago

I think having kids is scientifically proven to make you unhappy and greatly increase your stress levels. It’s no wonder people just put off having kids until they can, or pass on having them altogether.

1zee 7y ago
That's a pretty general, sweeping claim to make without a source.
- crooked-v 7y ago
  Current data suggests that net unhappiness is associated with raising children, but it's because of the cost of raising children and not the children themselves. https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2019/02/cost-raising-kids-parents-happiness/583699/ https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2019/02/cost-rais...
  - Barrin92 7y ago
    >but it's because of the cost of raising children and not the children themselves that's the equivalent of saying "if I control for skin colour I observe no discrimination". The cost of raising children both financially and in time, is intrinsically linked to raising children. It is often asserted that spousal relationships suffer from the routine chores that come with raising children, and that is not going away. Don't control for the thing you want to measure.
    - gubbrora 7y ago
      It suggests that "children leads to unhappiness" is a property of how society is currently set up and not a universal truth.
- sharkmerry 7y ago
  i agree, i found this from quick search.. somewhat supports him/her. Havent delved into the studies wholly yet https://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/why-does-anyone-have-children/ https://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/why-does-anyo...
jerkstate 7y ago
Conflating happiness (immediate) with satisfaction (long-term) is exactly the problem, nicely illustrated.
- Toine 7y ago
  I wish I could upvote a 100 times.
ogig 7y ago
Anecdote; my kid is my greatest source of happiness.
biohax2015 7y ago
If it's scientifically proven, there should be some research backing it up. Do you have a link to that research? You cannot just say things like this without providing evidence.
rayiner 7y ago
It's very complicated. Having kids at home makes you less happy (because they're work). But men who have had kids are significantly happier than men who never had kids once the kids are out of the house: https://ifstudies.org/blog/does-having-children-make-people-happier-in-the-long-run https://ifstudies.org/blog/does-having-children-make-people-... > By the time the 2016 survey rolled around, fathers were 40% more likely than childless men to see themselves as very happy. "Happiness" is also not the right concept here. Having kids doesn't necessarily make you "happy." But it's something people almost universally want: https://news.gallup.com/poll/164618/desire-children-norm.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/164618/desire-children-norm.asp.... By age 45, 86% of people have had kids, and only 6% of those wish they had not had kids. By contrast, out of those who didn't have kids, more than half wish they did. Even more remarkably, among all adults age 45+, as many people wish they had five or more kids as wish they had no kids (11%). There is pretty much no other life choice (college, career, etc.) that almost every body does that almost nobody regrets.
- aianus 7y ago
  > only 6% of those wish they had not had kids It's very socially unacceptable to admit you regret having had your kids. Even to an anonymous stranger conducting a phone poll. I am much more inclined to believe studies that ask for self-reported happiness and compare to life events / states like childlessness without directly asking "do you regret your kids". From what I understand, having children is negatively correlated with happiness in those sorts of studies.
  - halter73 7y ago
    > I am much more inclined to believe studies that ask for self-reported happiness and compare to life events / states like childlessness without directly asking "do you regret your kids". Did you reply to the wrong comment? That's why the parent poster led with this quote from IFS: > By the time the 2016 survey rolled around, fathers were 40% more likely than childless men to see themselves as very happy.
    - aianus 7y ago
kaitai 7y ago
The "science" you're referring to shows that parenting makes people less "happy" in any given moment while doing it and more "content" overall, more "satisfied" in older age. Moreover, there are significant country-by-country differences in these stats that seem to be tied to availability of high-quality, low-cost childcare and healthcare. One place to look for some overview of some of these studies is https://contemporaryfamilies.org/brief-parenting-happiness/ https://contemporaryfamilies.org/brief-parenting-happiness/
- WalterGR 7y ago
  Why did you put science in scare quotes?
  - jfengel 7y ago
    I think the intention is a quote rather than a scare quote. It's a little awkward to quote a single word like that. In that circumstance the following words "... you're referring to" serve the same function. But it does highlight the notion of "you were looking for science, here is science".
  - Goronmon 7y ago
    Probably referencing the use of the phrase "scientifically proven" and doubting the assertion being made and that there is in fact "science" that backs it up.
- throw0101a 7y ago
  It's the cost not the kids: > Having children makes people happier—if they can afford it. * https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2019/02/cost-raising-kids-parents-happiness/583699/ https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2019/02/cost-rais...
Ascetik 7y ago
That's the biggest crock I've ever read on HN. Where did this "science" come from? A bunch of self-obsessed journalists I'm sure or maybe /r/childfree? The people who are unhappy with kids are the people who are unhappy, depressed and bitter to begin with, lacking all empathy. You have to be a pretty self-absorbed individual to not love the innocence and charm of children. Every person I know with a family loves their children to death and are very content and happy. Happiness consists in pursuing the ultimate unchanging good and increasing in virtue, nothing passing in this life can give you ultimate everlasting happiness. It is a philosophical, metaphysical and theological question, not a question of children, free-time or money. Children are a good thing, but they're not the ultimate object whereby one becomes happy.
brianmc21 7y ago
I feel as though having children will make a lot of people very happy. But there is also a significant part(>1%) of the population that would be miserable. I believe a lot of the unhappiness is often from someone who was pressured into a choice they didn't critically think about or didn't want but caved in. Even if the pool of people is small the experience could be quite negative. Where as all the people who always wanted them will be happy. I took care of my brother and sisters a lot as a child and it made it very clear that I never wanted children.
- moorhosj 7y ago
  ==I took care of my brother and sisters a lot as a child and it made it very clear that I never wanted children.== Being a parent is not the same as taking care of your siblings. Using the experience of one to justify your decisions in another is short-sighted. How many parents have you ever heard say, "I wish I didn't have kids"?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - vict00ms 7y ago
    I've heard a lot of parents say something along those lines, though usually softened a bit: "I love my kids but if I had to do it all over again I wouldn't have had them."
    - Melchizedek 7y ago
      They love their kids but they would have preferred that their kids never existed? That doesn't sound like love.
      - projektir 7y ago
        Well, this reaction explains why people don't like to say it.
  - 7y ago
zaccus 7y ago
There's no way to objectively measure happiness, so no that hasn't been proven. Personally, I've found having a kid to be less stressful, less expensive, and more rewarding than my college/career experience. I'm happier now than I ever was before. Yeah it's hard sometimes, but what isn't?
camelNotation 7y ago
I have less than five kids, but more than one kid. My kids cause me a lot of stress. The burden of knowing I have to deal with them and their energetic, ridiculous antics every day when I get home really drains me. I don't really have time to exercise anymore because from sun-up to sundown I am dealing with them, so I'm slightly overweight and out of shape in a way I was not before I had kids. My diet isn't as diverse as it was before I had kids either because I can't go to the same places I used to or take the time to prepare what I used to prepare. I've stayed in the job I have now for longer than I should just because I worry about keeping a steady salary, paying my bills, and caring for my kids more than I ever worried about those things before. I don't spend a lot of money on self-care or personal enjoyment anymore because I need to save it in case something goes wrong and I need to spend the money on them. Am I less happy? YES. I am less happy than before. But if I was given the choice to go back, I wouldn't. I wouldn't even consider it. Not even for a millisecond. I don't know why and I really don't need to know why, but having kids is just better than being happy. I don't want to be happy, I want to be a good dad. It's true that being a parent makes you less happy, but it also makes happiness irrelevant (for the most part). It probably has something to do with evolution.
- StreamBright 7y ago
  Well, you have to make time for things you want to do. What we have done raising our kids is that we have one parent going to the gym, the other one is taking care of kids. You can do it if you are committed. Do not give up! Yes, it is rewarding to be a parent at the end of the day when they fall asleep. :)
- criddell 7y ago
  > But if I was given the choice to go back, I wouldn't. I wouldn't even consider it. There's a speech in the movie Parenthood [1] that expresses a lot of what you just said. With a kid (or kids), the highs are higher, the lows lower. Some want to be on a roller coaster, others are happier on a merry-go-round. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z18vJwmxFFY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z18vJwmxFFY
  - camelNotation 7y ago
avip 7y ago
Happiness is overrated.
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  And Purpose is underrated.
antisthenes 7y ago
Leaving aside the fact that you have not substantiated your claim, it could very well be that having kids in America makes you miserable, because the safety net is gutted or non-existent. There is almost no maternal/paternal leave, health care costs are astronomical, so are child care costs, which are almost necessary, because the normal multi-generational family has been systematically destroyed over the last half-century, both with advertising and economic pressure. Not to mention the lack of compromising skills in both partners, which has been exacerbated by identity politics. So yes, in context, maybe having kids is miserable* *with caveats and not everywhere.
umvi 7y ago
That's like saying it's scientifically proven that people who invest are poorer than people who hoard their cash (and don't invest). True in the short term, false in the long term.
joshuamcginnis 7y ago
Wouldn't that also contradict the biological imperative to pass on our genes? If having children had an overall and prolonged negative impact on your stress levels, it would also impede humans' ability to effectively procreate since stress has a direct impact on life expectancy and fertility. I can understand that in the short-term, that might be the case, but over a longer period (say the last 10k years) it does not appear to be true.
- olalonde 7y ago
  The stronger "biological imperative" is to have sex; birth control is quite a recent invention. And once you had kids, it doesn't matter that your life expectancy or fertility drops a bit because your genes are already passed on.
tracker1 7y ago
IIRC, married couples with children have some of the highest happiness indexes of the entire world.
asdff 7y ago
Having kids takes a lot of time and money. If you work till 5 you need to pay for childcare, which isn't cheap at all and might even be akin to doubling your rent. Mom is also working so you can't just unload domestic work and childcare to someone else to worry about. If you are entry level chances are you need to get there before the boss and stay there after if you ever want to not be entry level, and work weekends during busy season, so even that 40hr week can go up to 50-60. If you are a woman asking for maternity leave in an entry level job could jeopardize your entire career trajectory. Even in superficially liberal SF, VC firms have been known to discriminate against women entrepreneurs just from the possibility that they might be pregnant one day. People can scarcely keep housing costs below 30% of their net income. People are waiting until they have more money and a job that actually gives them time to raise a family. The real reason why people are putting off having kids is that it's not 1950 anymore.

KevinS626 7y ago

It's easier to sell to lonely individuals than a satisfied family. Hence all the crazy pressure to work more and be less... human.

CydeWeys 7y ago
You sure? People with families tend to spend more money (out of necessity). It's easier for people without kids to save up more money.
- wry_discontent 7y ago
  It's easier to meet your basic survival needs as an individual, and thus you have more disposable income for nonsense commodities. Everybody I know who is single and has a good job buys tons of junk they don't need (or often even want). It's the norm.
  - prophesi 7y ago
    Yeah I was literally doing some research on an electric unicycle that I probably won't use too often.
  - SergeAx 7y ago
    It's a variant of norm. Another variant is to throw away anything one doesn't use for more than a year, rent-not-buy most of entertaining stuff, including musical instruments, game consoles, fancy cars and dresses, holiday villas and yachts. Actually, hoarding and junk collecting is a prerogative of the poor.
    - badpun 7y ago
      Even renting "fancy cars and dresses, holiday villas and yachts" sounds like an opulent lifestyle, where someone has a lot of disposable income and is finding was to entertain himself with the extra cash.
      - 7y ago

jansho 7y ago

Mm, a radical idea these days! :) Lately I have come to realise that searching for the “cultured, polished being” and the “ideal life” actually made me feel even more insecure and trapping myself to my comfort zone. Oh yes doing a marathon is really stretching me. So is trying out new food. Watching a horrific war drama ... from a sofa. They’re all things that _I_ want, that _I_ control. When I get thrown into something totally random, especially when it’s stupid — like why is that kid crying? It’s just a sticker! — it distresses me a lot. Which is silly! Life is meant to be full of all sorts of randomness and silliness! So bizarrely, I am trying to do more normal things now. Like cleaning the house manually, talking to the old man next door, falling in love. All feels uncomfortable, but I feel more alive too!

jniedrauer 7y ago

Bringing a child into the world to increase my own personal happiness, when nothing else I could do has such a direct and massive climate impact, is not something I can justify personally. Not to mention, my child would have to live to see the impacts of climate change. There is coming a point (it has already passed, in my opinion), where we can no longer justify our purpose for existence as "creating more humans."

malvosenior 7y ago
Aside from eradicating the human race, any changes to climate will have to be driven by humans. Someone’s child will help solve the problem. It could be your’s.
- jniedrauer 7y ago
  There is no shortage of humans who want to have children. Not all 7 billion of us can have a family.
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    Indeed not everyone will reproduce but the future will be exclusively filled by people who’s parents did.
    - jjdjr0odo7 7y ago
      Ya can keep cutting this up; it’ll be exclusively filled by kids that survive. Infant mortality rates and suicide among adults are up. Parents have to consider raising successful adults is not guaranteed. Maybe the measure for loneliness is just wrong? Lonely relative to traditional values family model? Which had problems with depression, infidelity, parental anxiety 24/7... in other words, rife with emotional dysfunctions of its own. Are we concerned with decline in family because it’s the best model for organizing communal life or because we’re used to it? It feels different and weird, which can feel sad, but allows other models for socializing to explore.
7y ago

40acres 7y ago

I heard someone describe this as the "capstone" vs "conerstone" model. Previous generations got married and had kids much earlier, and built their lives off of that cornerstone. When it comes to me personally and my peers, we see marriage and children more as a capstone -- something to be done once our student loan is paid, or when we're ready to put a down payment on a house, when we get that promotion, etc.

sdegutis 7y ago
I know two sisters who each got married. The older one practiced worldly prudence, courted during high school, got engaged at beginning of college, and waited almost a decade until after her fiancé graduated before they got married and started to have children. But now he can't get a job with his degree (pharmacist), she works at some retail job as a manager, and the whole family lives with her parents. He's in >$100,000 debt and briefly went to a medical facility during a nervous breakdown after realizing he realistically can't pay it back. The younger sister had no such ambitions. Courted in high school, got engaged, married right out of high school, immediately started a family, he works at Walmart making higher than average money, and she stays at home raising the kids. They also live with her parents in the same house. True stories. This all happened over the past 7 years. I would say the prudence of the second couple vastly outshines the "prudence" of the first couple.
- sgslo 7y ago
  I'm not sure your story proves a whole lot. By the way you phrase it, the outcome of the older sister hinged upon the husband failing to get a job as a pharmacist. If he had successfully landed a job, the outcome of your story would be very different. The same argument could be made for the younger sister. What happens when Walmart downsizes, and the husband is out of job with a background only in retail? I'm not sure it is worth citing or criticizing the 'prudence' of either couple.
  - rhizome 7y ago
    Plus, I'm under the impression that "can't get a job as a pharmacist" is a rare problem.

sdegutis 7y ago

Pope Francis talks a lot about this in Amoris Laetitia[1] on the topic of Love in the Family. I've only finished the first two chapters but so far he has talked a lot about the same points you mentioned, and brought a lot of insights. My memory is failing me right now on specifics, but it's a very useful and insightful read for anyone who has a family, even if you're not Catholic. http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia.html http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations...

stronglikedan 7y ago

> I have noticed that people have been more and more intolerant to family flying with kids. This alone would encourage me to fly with my kids as often as possible.

ecoled_ame 7y ago
You sound mean, and too prone to burning fossil fuels to jet you and your family's fat asses around the world for no particular benefit to humanity.
- stronglikedan 7y ago
  Thank you for the super-constructive and totally-not-mean reply. Have the day you deserve! :-)

Nagyman 7y ago

A lot of people have kids _for themselves_. There are a lot of other endeavours one can pursue that will bring happiness. I think where we fail as a society, is in teaching ourselves how to find those pursuits, surround ourselves with friends, and avoid loneliness. > The mantra is to get rich and retire at 40 Hrm, I question the circle of people you're surrounded by. Many millennials are struggling to afford the basics, let alone travel or have a family! This is a contentious and potentially unpopular opinion, but I posit that having children borders on unethical at this point in history. We've wrecked the planet and have growing anti-intellectual culture. I'm happy you're happy though.

curious_fella1 7y ago
edit: That seems a little extreme and defeatist IMO.
maneshi 7y ago
And whose tax money will be looking after you in your old age, when you have no family of your own to take care of you? The children of those ‘unethical’ people you tediously condescend so proudly up on your high horse.
- AlexandrB 7y ago
  And whose tax money is paying for the schools that are educating those children at the moment? Oh right... This is a really bad argument. Especially in countries that have a lot more support for parents than the US.
  - maneshi 7y ago
    Yes, exactly. Isn’t that precisely the point? Paying it forward, so in turn we will be supported when we reach old age?
hindsightbias 7y ago
> and have growing anti-intellectual culture. From this thread, it would appear to be baked-in as a function of self-selection. One might argue intellectuals have an obligation to procreate.

Barrin92 7y ago

>I think the society has (wrongly) evolved towards an individualist model at the expenses of families. that's a wrong dichotomy. There's no fundamental reason why 35 year olds don't socialize, or why our education system stops at 25, why we have no communal institutions, and so on. The alternative isn't just between individualism and the family, what is needed is building out communities in ways that gives people the ability to connect in new ways that reflect our changes in work and living arrangements. As the article mentions the UK has introduced a minister for the problem of loneliness. What we need is to put policies into place that develop new modes of social life and to expand the public sphere. The nuclear family isn't really that attractive any more for a reason, so just asking to go back isn't really a great idea. People like the freedom that comes with having no or fewer children, being able to move, and being financially independent.

swejo 7y ago
That is an interesting opinion. Can you expound on what you would propose. My experience is that clubs or meetups often don't forge all that close relationships. Another example I could think of which is more positive is co-ops where people lived in a door room type experience with community rules and chore responsibilities (cooking, cleaning, maintenance). But I think many adult American's would think of a co-op as to close to a commune.
- Barrin92 7y ago
  Coop living for the elderly I think would be a fairly good start, I'm German and we have some of those communities in the south, it's usually like a small village where older residents take care of each other with the assistance of some company who provides caregivers, but people enjoy much greater autonomy than they do in their homes. It's not only cheaper, but also more dignified and people seem to be happier. For younger people I think coops are a great thing too. In the US implementing policies that discourages single family housing and promotes closer connection between workspace and living space I think would help. If you live and work in walking distance of your chess club going there is more likely compared to someone living in the suburbs. For communities there's also time banking which has gotten a little attention in recent years. Essentially paying people in a special currency for reciprocal help in their local communities that can only be exchanged locally, and everyone earns the same based on how long they work. Basically an egalitarian approach to fill in the gap where markets are too anonymous to provide meaning or where they don't exist at all. And then I think government and companies should do much more to promote education for middle aged and older people. And not just online learning, but physical interaction. In my experience educational institutions are some of the best places to make new social connections.

roymurdock 7y ago

i'm 26 and have traveled a fair bit and lived/worked in the US and UK young people go to the cities for high status, high paying jobs to pay off student loans and/or save up for the future in an increasingly uncertain world competition is extremely high for these jobs, compounded 1000x due to the rise and use of social media among my generation, which always suggests that next thing to buy or that next vacation to go on, either from corporations or your "friends" (it's hard to tell which is which after a while) - get that raise so you can unlock the next tier of stuff you see wealthy people doing gone are the days of getting an intellectually stimulating and well paying job with IBM/Ford/GE and building your career off it while having a family young, people my age usually stay in a job for 2/3 years then on to the next startup/job/"adventure" (if they have the right degree to get a job in the first place) then there's a completely separate cohort of people my age who have settled outside the city, gotten married, looking to have kids in low cost of living areas and figure out job stuff as they go (very risky unless you own your own biz or work for a family biz) dating is a similarly competitive game in the big cities, one that warrants its own 10 page essay per city based on the conversations i've had with single friends in LA/NY/London/SF the gap between generations is growing more and more pronounced/quicker due to technology grouping similar people together and amplifying their cultures...it takes effort but you need to continuously bridge this gap with those younger than you, otherwise their needs, desires, motivations will be completely alien to you - i almost don't understand the fortnite meme generation, but i make efforts to most young people are acutely aware of life outside work and money (especially asians/immigrants due to pressure from conservative parents), but it's getting harder and harder to find the middle class/balance between earning enough to have a family comfortably and affording a place to live while keeping your job options healthy/open for whatever BS is coming next down the economic chain

rewgs 7y ago
28 here, and I agree completely. Nice point about the people who try to figure the job thing out while taking the more “traditional” path — I feel like that’s a sizable part of our generation that’s usually ignored. Also, yeah, I don’t get the memes that my high school niece sends me at all. Their sense of humor is completely foreign to me.
7y ago

StreamBright 7y ago

And on the child-parent relationship front, we are not doing much better. As a result, kid going to schools that make them fit in cutting out creativity. It is much more rewarding to home school your kids and spends time with them bith in terms of their success later on and emotional development.

jbigelow76 7y ago

I have noticed that people have been more and more intolerant to family flying with kids. I think we hear about the bad stuff, some flight attendant or passenger complains, and the logical conclusion of a family with a crying baby is booted is the end result. My counter-anecdote is the exact opposite, my fourteen month old daughter cried the majority of our 3.5 hour return flight and she was quietest (not quiet but quietest) was when I was standing and holding her in the middle of the aisle. Any dirty looks, and I scanned for them occasionally, were non-existent (or I missed them and they never vocalized) and most people either had noise-cancelling headphones or just rolled with it. When we apologized for the noise there was a lot of "Oh ours our teenagers now, we've been there, you're ok!" Some of it maybe the bigger stink they make the longer it all takes, but a lot of it is probably shared communal experiences. If some baby was wailing their lungs off next to me on a plane, I'd roll with it, the parent(s) is having a far tougher time of it then I am.

genema 7y ago
Same observation here. I've never seen anyone give dirty looks to any crying kids / babies on a plane. Most people are closing their eyes / sleeping or have their headphones on doing whatever. I mean, there are so many solutions to a crying kid (for the observer) that there's no reason to get upset about it (and I haven't seen this being the case at all).

umvi 7y ago

You even have movies promoting this lifestyle... La La Land anyone?

wetpaws 7y ago

I believe what you described is called 'survivor bias'.

kleiba 7y ago

Sorry, but I call baloney. I know you're just describing your personal impression and don't claim them to be universally true. But allow me to present some evidence, er, anecdote to the contrary: I have also traveled the world and lived on three continents. I met lots of cool people and was lucky enough to make friends with some of them in all the places that I visited. I never observed the same as you apparently did, namely that they invested themselves in nothing but their career, traveling, parties, etc. As a matter of fact, coming to think of it, a lot of the people I know (most of them college age) were also from abroad and made sure to stay involved with the family business back home as much as they could. Also, a lot of my friends were actually couples, showing that they cared for more than just work and individual leisure. Some of them got married since. Of course, differences may be due to a number of reasons. What area of work you're in, for example. What geographical location you're in. And naturally, you probably tend to make friends with people that are to some degree similar in some respect. Also, there's varying degrees of peer pressure to like the same things if you want to be part of the in-crowd (or any crowd you like, really). Oh, and let's not forget: cultural background. So I don't think you can generalize as much as you did in your post.

ismail-khan 7y ago

> They are so used to live their own lives that they have extremely hard time compromising any part of it. Reminds me of this passage from The Brothers Karamazov: > “I heard exactly the same thing, a long time ago to be sure, from a doctor,” the elder remarked. “He was then an old man, and unquestionably intelligent. He spoke just as frankly as you, humorously, but with a sorrowful humor. ‘I love mankind,’ he said, ‘but I am amazed at myself: the more I love mankind in general, the less I love people in particular, that is, individually, as separate persons. In my dreams,‘ he said, ‘I often went so far as to think passionately of serving mankind, and, it may be, would really have gone to the cross for people if it were somehow suddenly necessary, and yet I am incapable of living in the same room with anyone even for two days, this I know from experience. As soon as someone is there, close to me, his personality oppresses my self-esteem and restricts my freedom. In twenty-four hours I can begin to hate even the best of men: one because he takes too long eating his dinner, another because he has a cold and keeps blowing his nose. I become the enemy of people the moment they touch me,’ he said. ‘On the other hand, it has always happened that the more I hate people individually, the more ardent becomes my love for humanity as a whole.’” The speaker goes on to say: > Love in dreams thirsts for immediate action, quickly performed, and with everyone watching. Indeed, it will go as far as the giving even of one’s life, provided it does not take long but is soon over, as on stage, and everyone is looking on and praising. Whereas active love is labor and perseverance, and for some people, perhaps, a whole science.

hi41 7y ago
Nice quote. Does the author tell why he ends up hating a human when he loves humanity. I think I too have that problem. I look at all the TED talks and think I should love humanity but I have a bad husband to my wife and a bad father to my kids. tia.
- ativzzz 7y ago
  I think it's not anything wrong with you per se, nor have I read the book, but I think it's because like the author says, dealing with people on an individual basis requires personal sacrifice. Particularly, emotional sacrifice. Allowing people to get a cold without letting it bother you. Making compromises and being forced to do things you don't want, while not being able to do what you want, on a daily micro level. Whereas tasks that show your love for humanity are more detached from actual individuals. Curing cancer requires you to interact with lab equipment and microorganisms more than humans. Sure your opportunity costs here may be playing video games or traveling, but they are less emotional costs and more material costs. Paying emotional tolls is difficult, and from my experience, many people are simply incapable of paying them. I mean, they are or may be capable, but they would have to change the way they act or behave, and they are not willing to do so. I think there's a genetic component to it.

rb808 7y ago

> I have been lucky enough to be able to work and live in several countries around the world. One thing in common I noticed in all these places is that guys and girls don't have time and don't want to commit to a stable long relation. This could be selective though. If you're living in expat communities in global hubs, everyone knows people are there for only a short time, so its not worth investing in long term commitment.

SergeAx 7y ago

> They are so used to live their own lives that they have extremely hard time compromising any part of it. I say that when someone having extremely hard time doing something, he/she just doesn't need that something hard enough. Most of the people rarely have hard time eating or drinking or watching interesting movie or spending time with friends. Before XX century it was extremely hard to live alone, unless one have stable source of income or an inheritance. For lay people family was just a question of survival. Children was the only recipe of aging in dignity. It is still valid in XXI century, but now there are other ways to live one's life. Forties is not an age of retirement, but a most active age of reaping rewards and even starting a new ventures. There are other means of self realization besides family and children. I don't see anything particularly bad about it.

ramraj07 7y ago

Good news is there are still people who get married and have kids. Bad news is they're definitely the less introspective (for lack of a less offensive word) than the ones that don't get married. My interpretation is that we finally have the freedom from cultural norms to really do whatever we please, but with great freedom comes great responsibility, not just to society but to our own long-term selves. Perhaps these people you talk about have chosen poorly, very poorly indeed, with this freedom. Nothing to do but advise the ones who might listen, and build a moat (physical or mental) that can protect you and your loved ones from them when shit hits the fan.

tracker1 7y ago

Along a similar note... kids are for the young. When you're in your 20's it's MUCH easier to play with young kids and at least try to keep up as it is when you're in your 40's. There's also something to be said for averting hookup culture and actually trying to build a relationship as opposed to ejecting at the first sign of inconvenience. I say both of these things as a twice divorced 40-something that hasn't had kids of his own and deeply regrets it.

duderific 7y ago
FWIW I'm 50 and have an almost 5-year-old and almost 1-year-old. So far I'm keeping up with them OK. I am a bit worried about having an 18 year old and being 68 though. We'll see how it goes.
- leetcrew 7y ago
  my dad was 45 when I was born and 47 when my brother was born. maybe he didn't have as much energy as some of the younger dads when I was a kid. but on the other hand he was able to retire while I was in high school, so he was able to spend a lot more time with my brother and I before we moved out.

genema 7y ago

Can you give examples of how people have become more intolerant of families flying with kids? Every flight I've been on where there was a kid crying the whole time, nobody so much as flinched. I think people understand that kids cry, and the situation is only worsened in a pressurized cabin. I'm curious what specific experiences you had that made you make that statement?