4 ms·
I think you completely missed the point. What's good enough for the kids may not be good enough for the parents. It's the parents that are yearning to spend m
by nissimk 14y ago
I think you completely missed the point. What's good enough for the kids may not be good enough for the parents. It's the parents that are yearning to spend more time with their kids and to say yes more to the "play with me." Even more so than the begging child.
It's about identifying the costs and benefits and it is different for everyone because the benefits are not measurable. If your immigrant family invested in a security system and hired an employee to manage the store so they could spend fewer hours there, that cost is measurable. Their added well being or happiness from spending that time with their children instead of at their business is not easily quantifiable and is more of a feeling. The point of the article is that for many people the trade is worth it and they're better off spending more time with family than at work.
Besides, the excessive hours running your business is the e-myth anyhow. They're better off learning how to leverage the work of others.
All that being said, some people want to have kids but they really don't enjoy spending a lot of time with kids (even their own). Those people are definitely better served by focusing on their work and outsourcing childcare.
- rayiner 14y ago> What's good enough for the kids may not be good enough for the parents. That's certainly true, but orthogonal to what I'm talking about. It's one thing to downshift your career because you want to spend more time with your kids. It's another thing to do so because you tell (incorrectly) that working long hours is "not compatible with family life." My objection is to people who justify downshifting because of imagined benefits to the kids, not real benefits to themselves.