12 ms·
The New Work-Life Balance: Don't Have Kids
- mhitza 3y agohttps://archive.is/aHZX8 https://archive.is/aHZX8
- wkat4242 3y agoI 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.
- okokwhatever 3y agoMy kids will be happy to enjoy an empty world. Thank you.
- rolisz 3y agoI enjoy life a lot more with kids. As Paul Graham put it in one of his essays, kids are joy on tap.
- wkat4242 3y agoI wouldn't feel like that for sure. I just need my own space. I'm not very mature as a person either (despite being close to 50) But I'm glad we don't have this kind of social pressure to have kids anymore. Like there was in the 50s and some countries still do.
- hotpotamus 3y agoThis is why it's strange to me that having children is portrayed as some selfless act; many say they are creating them for their personal fulfillment. Nevertheless, I'm sure if I had PG's wealth, I could have kids and have a lot better work life balance with them. But I do not.
- throwaway47810 3y agoThe environment is not intrinsically worth protecting, the reason we need to take care of it is so that the people that come after us can enjoy it. If humanity has to go extinct in 40 years might as well tear up all current climate agreements.
- ben_w 3y agoWhile that position is coherent, the urge to have a legacy and reproduce, can also be found in the form of wanting the environment — the world — to persist after us.
- DarkNova6 3y agoIt's good not to breath for environmental reasons too. In contrast, kids are necessary to stop overaging and the collapse of our society.
- prmoustache 3y agoOTOH the collapse of our society is probably the best thing that can happen for our environment. But anyway, if you need active workforce, the solutions is simple: immigration.
- supersrdjan 3y agoThe 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/this-be-the-verse https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/48419/this-be-the-ver...
- wkat4242 3y agoIt'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 after we've been growing so hard as a species. Of course we can't keep growing forever. And hoping the future comes up with a magical answer is exactly how we got into the climate mess we're in right now.
- lm28469 3y agoThe west is way bellow replacement rate so feel free to have a few kids, it's not going to change much
- prmoustache 3y agoHuman population is constantly growing. We can import people. Actually a lot of people are willing to join us, no need to breed fresh ones.
- lm28469 3y agoI don't think you're up to date with current population trends, it's about to peak in the next decades
- Uinchuling 3y agoPeople who don't care about the environment are breeding like rabbits. Their children, too, won't care about the environment. The best thing you can do for the environment is to find someone as passionate as yourself and create a large family of conscientious, thoughtful, active environmentalists.
- supersrdjan 3y agoIndeed, give the environment a fighting chance :) The absence of people with bad ideas won't help as much as a surplus of people with good ideas. Since even if we had half the people they could still pollute like crazy.
- zelphirkalt 3y agoVery few people in first world countries though, will be able to balance or surpass negative environmental effects of all the usual things included in raising a child, even with activist lives. Neither will their children.
- oldpersonintx 3y ago[dead]
- xyzzy4747 3y agoIf 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.
- okokwhatever 3y agoWow, just WOW. The Dystopia has gone too far away in 2024... Stop the train please, i'm jumping out of it.
- keyle 3y agoI have two kids. It's tough. But this kind of "opinion" column on a large network is just despicable. Kids is the hardest thing to come to life, I call it "life on hard mode". And I've moved across the world. But the gains are immense. You can bend yourself backward your entire career trying to achieve something that is taken away in a whiff. Your children is a richer investment. When you leave this earth, you're leaving something tangible. Living a full life is about experiencing life fully. Raising children is a huge part of this. Going to a restaurant twice a week with your partner, when you're 40+ and no kids, will get very repetitive and boring. People on HN are typically pretty well off. Low social economic couples tend to have 3, 4, 5+ kids. Certain countries with extremely low standards of living have many kids as well. Look at yourself and be clear about this: we're thinning. Society needs fixing, not having less kids. Smart people need to have kids too. If being "smart" is not having kids, we've failed at the game of life!
- andyjohnson0 3y agoI was agreeing with you until you wrote: > we're decreasing, the typical white middle-class couple is facing extinction. [...] I don't mean this with a grain of racism Please don't do this. "We" on HN and in the west and in world in general is incredibly diverse. Your comment disrespects this human diversity. Please take some time to think about that.
- Uinchuling 3y ago[flagged]
- saagarjha 3y agoThis isn't how discourse works and you know it. It is eminently acceptable to censure people who put forward racist and eugenicist views even if done so politely.
- Uinchuling 3y ago[flagged]
- holoduke 3y agoI 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.
- wegfawefgawefg 3y agoThats not the kids. Thats your lifestyle. There are people with kids living in the jungle on tubers and pigs.
- bemusedthrow75 3y ago> 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.
- wegfawefgawefg 3y agoThey said they spend 10k a month for their kids. I lived in the bay area before. My rent was like 2.5k. 10k outflow a month is fucking insane. Its absolutely indefensibly out of touch spoiled beyond imagination. You could hire a chef and a maid to cook your kids organic bullshit every day, fly around the entire world once a month and still come under 10k. Whatever they are doing to spend that much needs to be reconsidered. Insurance, tennis practice, private school, whatever it is. 80% of it needs to be cut, and put into savings or invested at regular intervals. Its just plain irresponsible, and to complain about the cost of kids while waving numbers like that around would piss off 90% of families in the US living well under that outflow.
- anotherhue 3y agoNanny here in NY is $30/h. If you work full time (and commute) you'll need about 10 hours a day. 30x10x5x4 is 6000, then add food (formula is insanely expensive), diapers, clothes, basic medical and you're easily up to 7k/m before they've taken their first steps.
- remoquete 3y agoI'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 it the right choice? Perhaps not. Is it a selfish choice? Yes. Why did I do it then? For the same reason I keep breathing. I don't know much more than that.
- Affric 3y agoLife 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.
- menschmanfred 3y agoIt'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.
- anonymousDan 3y agoWhat nonsense. Having kids is not selfish.
- bluescrn 3y agoWhat is the goal of humanity? To maximise quality of life, maximise duration of life, or maximise the numer of humans? At the moment, we seem to be aiming for 'maximum number of humans'. But in a world of climate crisis and depleted resources, that means ever-fewer freedoms, rapidly declining quality of life, and increasing levels of war/conflict.
- menschmanfred 3y ago
- shmageggy 3y agoWas anyone able to actually read this article? I was greeted by a barrage of popups and overlays that even broke the back button
- roenxi 3y agoWell, lets look at the data over at OurWorldIndata: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-per-woman-un?tab=chart https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-per-woman-un?tab... Looks like the last time there was a big change was 1960, I assume that was the development of good birth control techniques. I'd theorise that families never really wanted children, and once given the means to make effective choices we discover that humans don't think it is that rational to have kids. It is a weirdly philosophical problem - similar to what we will soon face with artificial intelligence - of what exactly are we trying to do as living entities. It is hard to find a path that isn't either nihilism or, from a factual and materialistic perspective, insanity. I personally think this is probably a good thing. Evolutionary forces will push society above replacement rates sooner or later by whatever means it takes, but we should enjoy the window where we don't need to fight about resources for as long as is possible. If only the African nations would get their birth rates under control, anyway.
- remoquete 3y agoThere's nothing rational in having kids, as in many other things we do as human beings. I've no arguments to refuse books like David Benatar's Better Never to Have Been. Actually, I agree with most of his theses. The only rational actors that want us to have kids are governments, because citizens pay taxes and provide soldiers. Still, I embrace my lack of rationality. It's what makes me human.
- dtech 3y agoThe downward trend is generally attributed in a large part due to children changing from being an economic boon - free labor on farms - to an economic burder like they are today with childcare etc.
- notfried 3y agoFor 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 :)
- davedx 3y agoI had my first child in my mid 30's, and one of my friends started when both him and his partner were in their 40's. No regrets, but the biological challenges can be very real -- my friends had to use IVF for both their pregnancies. I don't know anyone who had kids a bit later in life who regretted it purely due to their age. Though being now in my mid 40's I think I would struggle with the sleep deprivation and noise of a new baby....
- ben_w 3y agoI'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
- xyzzy4747 3y agoDo you regret having a boyfriend instead of a relationship that biologically can produce children?
- hiAndrewQuinn 3y agoYou could also just work less, or let yourself spend less time and energy on your kids. I get that most people recoil in horror at the latter one. I think they're silly. The fact of the matter is the world is a safer and more prosperous place than ever before. You should be able to invest less into your children than your parents did before you and still have them lead happy lives. If you have a child, and your own life isn't a pile of misery, you can be reasonably confident your kid's life won't be either. After all, you grew up in a poorer world than they did. But if you hold back on having children because you fear you can't afford to send them to Yale, or buy them all the Steam games they ever wanted, you're probably not saving them from a life of pain, you're just depriving the world of another soul which could've had a beautiful experience here.
- quietbritishjim 3y agoI wonder if the key issue here is lack of housing in developed countries. Here in the UK, owning a nice house (not just a flat/apartment) in a decent suburb is out of reach for most people who are at the traditional age to have children. That is a problem of lack of land rather than some inherent material cost. With such a vicious fight over the few properties that exist, almost all income is squeezed on that goal, with very little left for other costs of raising children. It also encourages everyone to have a worse work/life balance in a desperate attempt to get more income for housing (but of course it's a zero sum game because that just pushes the prices up for everyone).
- cpursley 3y ago> 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.
- formerly_proven 3y agoI'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 both renting and renter locals.
- askonomm 3y agoI don't have nor want/have any desire for kids, yet all the people with kids keep telling me I should, and not having them is selfish (...how? Isn't it the other way around?), and multitude of other reasons why I should definitely have them and that if I don't then I'm somehow a horrible person. What I don't get is why people keep forcing their lifestyle onto those with a different lifestyle? Do they see me having all this free time and get jealous and want me to spend the best years of my life also stressing out and raising kids or why is that?
- cpursley 3y agoI’ve done all the “lifestyle” stuff as well. We’re not jealous. Kids are an order of magnitude more rewarding.
- cpursley 3y agoAnd here’s the secret: when the kids are a bit older, they can participate in your lifestyle: travel, skiing, instruments, etc.
- askonomm 3y agoNo thanks. Don't like kids.
- prmoustache 3y agoFunny how the OP just complained about the social pressure and then people like you can't refrain from adding on top of it. I have kids, I love them, I love parts of what having kids is about, and I hate other parts. If for some reason I had to hit rewind, I would probably choose it without having kids with the information I gained over the years. And I totally understand people not wanting kids.
- drukenemo 3y agoThat’s assuming they will like you what you like.
- askonomm 3y ago
- nonrandomstring 3y agoThere seems to be a colossal misunderstanding in the first line. > successful, meaningful careers, and they just didn't see how they could juggle those jobs and the demands of parenthood. That's a false dilemma. Meaning does not come from a bare "career". It comes from how that "career" relates to others. Not everyone can have kids, and many of us find ourselves alone. "Kids" could equally be replaced by charity work, intimate relationships, sports or whatever. But rising up the ranks and accumulating a big pile of money brings neither success nor meaning. I think the observed change in attitudes has less to do with parenting (or not) than that the present generation have bought into the corporate lie much more than earlier ones.
- j7ake 3y agoIt’s also not meaningful if that career coerces you to give up your outside family life (by imposing a huge penalty for having kids) so you can keep working your desk job, report to a boss, and have your 3 weeks of vacation a year.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago> imposing a huge penalty for having kids It shocked me to find quite how devious and aggressive workplaces can be towards women that get pregnant (or who they simply suspect of being in a potentially "fertile" relationship). Shouldn't it be illegal for employers to monitor communications that might indicate impending motherhood? What about measuring their body temperature covertly? Spying on eating habits. Or making comments about weight and shape? So you don't have to deal with searching for "Pregnant and screwed" :) here's a link I dug up for people [0] and some real accounts from women in IT who get the sharp end of this [1]. One woman I know went through a wrenching and drawn out court case and won a small fortune against a big British company. She was not able to come on the show because that settlement for constructive dismissal came with a serious NDA/gagging order. [0] https://pregnantthenscrewed.com/ https://pregnantthenscrewed.com/ [1] https://cybershow.uk/episodes.php?id=22 https://cybershow.uk/episodes.php?id=22
- seec 3y ago
- furyg3 3y agoView 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.
- the_third_wave 3y ago> 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
- ghusto 3y agoIt's not a co-incidence that so many people come here to raise their children, but close-by countries like France, Germany, and Spain aren't much different. And yeah, complaining is the national pass-time, until you visit certain other countries ;)
- xyzzy4747 3y agoIf 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.
- supersrdjan 3y agoReading the rest of this thread, it seems that the anti-anti-natalists (to which I gravitate more closely) are misrepresenting the anti-natalists' view and that they don't actually expect everyone to be anti-natalist?
- xyzzy4747 3y agoPerhaps but even then they’re not exactly being role models or exemplary people.
- bemusedthrow75 3y agoCrikey. Is it really the case, here on HN, that not wanting to have kids actually makes you an "anti-natalist"? It just means you don't want to have kids. It doesn't imply any kind of belief structure. Who knew HN had such a trad subculture. Does not wanting children rule you out from being a role model for them (or anyone else) or being "exemplary"?
- hotpotamus 3y agoWouldn't it be good that they're not planning on having children to whom they'd model that behavior to?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Gud 3y ago“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
- j7ake 3y ago“We choose to [have kids] and [have a career] not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve to organise and measure the best of our energies and skills,”
- okokwhatever 3y agoPlease, join the anti-natalist movement. I need more space for the swimming pool in the backyard.
- ghusto 3y agoOn the one hand, I'm happy to see people being responsible. So many people who shouldn't have had children don't change, and think they can "have it all". You can not. Your life as you know it is over, and if that only dawned on you after you already had a kid, then join the club, but don't delude yourself, and don't make your kid suffer the consequences of your delusion. On the other hand; stop being a little wuss. The reasons I see being given by those fretting the responsibilities seem to be born from general anxiety and over-thinking. Nobody is ever ready to have a child, but we do it any learn along the way because we're arrogant enough in the beginning, and humble enough afterward the beginning. What I see with this generation however, is never trying because on paper it's impossible. Yes, it's impossible, but that shouldn't stop you if it's what you really want.
- kristianp 3y agoIt's an interesting demographic problem: how do you encourage people to have enough children that the working-age population doesn't decline so quickly that we can't support our retired people and also have a wider effect on the economy? In the long run it's something that we'll have to deal with. China is starting to experience it. I think that the populations of developed countries will start to decline, and a gradual decline is acceptable. We can't rely on immigration forever, presumably less rich countries will start to have less children too as they modernize.
- iteratethis 3y agoThe article emphasizes socioeconomic conditions as a root cause for the declining birth rate. Whilst those factors do not help, it's not why the birth rate is declining. It's a universal trend. The exact same issue is happening in countries that are far more family-friendly. The world used to REQUIRE you to have children. As your personal pension plan. By cultural or religious force. Or because of the lack of education or contraceptives. Now in most parts of the world, you're not required. It becomes a question of WANT instead of MUST. And when you ask people how many children they want, the answer is typically 0, 1 or 2. Most people still want children, and quite a few prefer 2. But that averages out to 1.5-1.8 in the aggregate. Which is far below replacement level. People still want children, just not many per household. Why the cut-off at 2? Because 3, 4, 5 does not fundamentally improve upon the joy of having children whilst it adds a lot of challenges. Bigger home, bigger car, many more trips to take them everywhere, cooking is more complex, it's a mess. Anyway, the point being is that the article is largely wrong. People that do not want any children because of their focus on career will still not want children when policies are more family-friendly. There's plenty of evidence of this not working. It doesn't move the needle. You should still go for better policies, just don't expect it to fix this problem.
- Assassink786 3y agoWait, What?