It's astounding that we have come so far that this needs to be defended. Throughout history, civilizations which held the nuclear family as their most important asset have absolutely dominated the world. This is due to simple evolutionary forces, which for K-selected species, favor fewer offspring which have much longer weaning periods. As a result, parents who invested more in providing their offspring with education and sustenance did substantially better as a society than their competitors.
It is quite ironic that the vast wealth accumulated by the western world, which was built upon the nuclear family as its foundation, has now allowed the next generation such freedom that they can dally as singles for significant portions of their lives. That being said, singles are very productive in short bursts, but these are unstable and fuelled by emotional insecurity which, as mentioned in the article, inevitably lead to burnout.
Society will inevitably return to its nuclear family origins, as the fun loving singles will not provide offspring in quality and quantity to compete with these traditional families.
Moral of the story: don't be so quick to condemn the old ways of family life. They have survived for millenia, and will continue to do so long after we're gone.
> civilizations which held the nuclear family as their most important asset have absolutely dominated the world
I'm not aware of any civilization that "held the nuclear family as their most important asset" (whatever that means). Ancient Greek literature does not wax poetic about the paramount importance of the nuclear family, neither does Renaissance Florence. Confucian ancestor worship is the only system of ethics that comes close to that (and it's about the extended family) - but I doubt that's what you meant.
> simple evolutionary forces, which for K-selected species [...]
Anyone who threw even a cursory glance at the Lotka-Volterra equations [1] would not talk of evolutionary forces as being "simple".
> singles are very productive in short bursts, but these are unstable
And yet some of the most creative / productive people in history did not also create nuclear families (Michelangelo, Kant, Turing etc.).
Ancient Greece did not genetically survive. We have remnants of their culture NOT by virtue of their genetic fitness nor the continuance of their civilization, merely because we discovered their artifacts and the people whom they enslaved had children who fancy themselves as the children of the masters of their ancestors. Don't be fooled, Ancient Greece's failure to mention the importance of the nuclear family should be evidence as to what happens to cultures that lay aside such. Namely they are wiped out and their heritage is merely whatever is picked up by those near by after their society dies and goes through the throughs of civil and social collapse. The fact that Florence had a Renaissance to go through, thanks to discoveries of artifacts of the long dead Greeks and Romans.
And as per some of the most 'creative'/'productive' people being single presumes that their accomplishments sprung out of their heads like Athena. None of them would have the very culture they played off of that enabled their greatness without the existence of nuclear families.
The Roman Empire lasted a thousand years, but I've never seen anything suggesting that they lionised the nuclear family. "Lay aside the concept of nuclear family" didn't seem to stop them, and few cultures have lasted as long as they have.
The whole point about the term 'nuclear family' is that is refers to the (generally WASP) family structure in the nuclear age. It is specific to the modern age. Trying to retrofit it to historical civilisations is only going to end up in trying to explain away why this one or that one doesn't fit.
Strangely, you dismiss Ancient Greek culture as not being up to the task, but then grant that Florentine success was only because they copied old Greek culture. It's also worth mentioning that the Renaissance wasn't just central Europeans rediscovering archaic artifacts, as there was a host of new ideas and technologies being founded at the time, eventually accelerating into the Enlightenment period.
A nitpick that has caused much confusion in the comments below:
The nuclear family is the most basic form of family, and is certainly not opposed to an extended family. An extended family is a superset of a nuclear family. All families by definition must include the subset of the nuclear family, and thus it is the minimum requirement to fall into the set of "All possible families".
For the set of all families F, there exists an element N = "nuclear family" such that N is a subset of F.
This is not true. If the children don't live with the parents, it's not a nuclear family. If one parent is dead or the parents don't live together, it's not a nuclear family.
If dad's abusive and mum can't cope, and the grandparents are taking care of the kids at their place, it's not a nuclear family - the supposed 'nucleus' is not there.
If there are no children, but adult siblings live together, they are a family, but not a nuclear one.
My old boss took in a couple of teenagers from up the road when their mother was caught cheating and fled, never to be seen again, and the father was a pilot, always away, and utterly useless with kids. So here you have a situation where there is a sort of stepmother (no formal adoption) taking care of two kids (who come to see her as mum), a separate father who's not really in their lives, and a biological mother who has never been seen since. It's hard to see how terming that fractured family as a 'nuclear family' allows the phrase to have any useful meaning whatsoever.
You are speaking of time variance. At some point in time, by definition, the nuclear family was present. It takes a male and a female to produce an embryo. At this point, the nuclear family is created. What happens afterwards is of course a combination of choice and probability, as your plethora of examples indicate.
The only thing that is important in my assertion is whether the nuclear family unit is purposefully maintained by the parents, or not. The many reasons outside of the parents' control which may contribute to its dissolution are not part of this discussion (accidental death, dislocation, disease, etc.).
As with any problem, we must be careful in defining our variables and assumptions, and minimize both in order to reduce the complexity of the problem, but not so much that the problem being solved becomes trivial.
That does not mean that all families are supersets of a nuclear family. A stepfamily years down the track is not a superset of an earlier nuclear family. It's like saying that the cars on our roads are supersets of aluminium ore, there just happens to be time variance. Or that synthetic clothing is actually made from trees (via swamps -> oil) and therefore a superset of natural clothing, there just happens to be time variance.
And, strictly speaking, an embryo is not always created at the time of intercourse. Even if your definition was correct, it is possible for the father and mother to be together, the father to leave, and then for the egg and sperm to meet. This can be be up to 3 to 5 days later.
Your definition of family has become so vague as to be meaningless. In genetics, adoptive parents are not considered family. I recommend you look into the evolutionary foundations of human mating systems, and their consequences (e.g. kin selection).
When did we specify we were solely talking about genetics? Do you really declare that the stepfamily down the road isn't actually a family? That's just nonsense from a political, social, or philosophical standpoint, and doubly so when you consider that the term we're using - nuclear family - is most often used in these contexts. I'm a biologist by training (though not a geneticist) and I've never seen the term 'nuclear family' used when talking genetics, but I've seen it a great many times in political and social commentary.
In any case, what society considers a family has more impact on how humans treat each other than what genetics considers a family, so I don't see how you can so casually discard non-genetic definitions. If you go to a court that deals in family law, they certainly don't limit their definition of family to pure genetic strains.
In principle, the father could have died before the embryo was created - either during the time between intercourse and conception, or further decoupled with sperm banks &c.
I didn't mean "opposed to" in the sense that "extended family" excluded the nuclear family (if present) but just "opposed to" in that they are not the same concept. That said, as vacri suggests, it's possible for there to be family that does not have a nuclear subset (orphaned children live with grandparents, or what have you).
It seems I am wrong with the definition, or rather am using an uncommon variant of the term. Still, living with extended family has been pretty common before the age of pensions.
I'm not sure if that's true (considering just Hellenism and the descendants that Alexander the Great's people must have left between Thrace and India), but to address this more generally: of course if you don't have children you won't "genetically survive". The question was whether it would preclude you from great work. In this regard, Ancient Greece is an example of work that did survive - and even, for many centuries, served as a model.
> It is quite ironic that the vast wealth accumulated by the western world, which was built upon the nuclear family as its foundation, has now allowed the next generation such freedom that they can dally as singles for significant portion of their lives.
Freedom? More like not being able to afford the expenses of having a family.
I'm 36 and make above the average income for a person in Los Angeles, but I can't afford a house and can't fathom trying to raise a family on my income. It would basically be a choice between having children or having a retirement. If this is freedom, I hope I don't get any more liberated than I already am.
At least you responsibly considered this. Having a family is a big deal in Utah, and we have too many people who just go for it in their early 20s, no college, no career path. It doesn't end well. I'm not anti-family, but I resent the attitude here that it's something you have to do, or even some sort of god-given right. Families should be well-planned. Quality over quantity of life.
There's a certain level of elitism in this thinking, namely in the fact that educated, wealthier people tend to underestimate how happy poor people are. To a point, wealthier people are happier and worry less, but I don't think it's in practice so much more that say one wealthy, well-educated person has more total happiness than two poor people.
It circles back to kids. There are a lot of things in my life, in terms of education and career path that make me happy. I worked very hard in grad school for several years and got exactly the job I wanted, and that accomplishment makes me happy. But my daughter makes me much happier than that, and she was the product of five minutes and something it takes no education or intelligence to do...
Also, childless people, on average, will cost more to society than they contribute. To be conservative, pension programs (including social security) rely on there being at least as many people around in the future to pay the bills. If you don't have any kids, someone else's kids are paying the bills.
In a vacuum, if a couple has only one child, that child had better grow up to support those two people in retirement. If four grandparents only have one grandchild, it's even worse.
The current answers to that problem are immigration (in which case someone else is still paying for benefits) or incredibly low take-home pay for workers (lots of withholding for personal or public retirement funds).
There are enough people on earth, and the global population is increasing. You don't need to personally replace yourself; immigration can handle that task. It's only when you don't allow much immigration that you have to start getting worried (such as with Japan)
On the other hand, the most significant way you can reduce your environmental impact (short of ending your own life) is to not have children. In that regard, it's the most responsible decision anyone can make.
My opinion is not that everyone who has kids is screwed. My observations are that many people don't plan it well. This is possibly not the same issue in the tech centers where the salaries are middle-rich class and people are generally more educated and rational in their decisions.
This was more of an opinion coming from my hometown, where we have an epidemic of twenty-somethings divorced with three kids because they took on too much too fast.
edit: also, when you're at a bar and the first questions are:
- are you divorced?
- how many kids do you have?
That's one way of looking at things. Another is that countries like Japan are having huge issues because nobody is having kids anymore. Quantity of life matters, too.
But I agree that people should be wiser about planning their lives out. I'm not sure that's a solvable problem, though.
>Another is that countries like Japan are having huge issues because nobody is having kids anymore.
Eh, I think Japan's problem is more that they have a very narrow idea (ethnically speaking) as to what they want Japanese people to look like. If they were willing to loosen up a bit on that, there are plenty of people who would be willing to come, become Japanese, and if it's anything like immigration here in the US, probably have a fair number of children.
Or maybe being a heavily populated island nation is the root of their problems, both in terms of what kind of person they find acceptable and how many people can be tolerated in the limited space they have.
Japan will not survive in any real way, demographic numbers are such that whatever might survive will not look very much like Japan does now. They simply are not having enough kids, and have been on that path for a very long time with no sign of the dramatic change they would need to survive.
You don't. However, having a house, a family, and a retirement fund was a realistic goal in generations past, and it's not really a 'middle class' option anymore.
It's semi-achievable in San Francisco. It takes two incomes, and you have to make sacrifices.
In SF, applications developers, dental hygienists, and registered nurses all earn, on average, around 100k a year. Two of them together would together earn about $220k a year in SF. That's workable.
That's depressing. Sure, it might be workable too. But depressing. That's a little over a million dollars in FIVE YEARS. Ok ok, one or two more for final take-home pay.
And that's still merely "workable" rather than "Oh boy we've got it made!"
If the goal is "Buy and own a house", pulling in $220/year pre-tax probably isn't enough to get the job done. Unless you're living extremely scarcely in the meantime.
It's very easy to fall into the notion that you need to have ALL of your ducks in a row before having (planned) children. My wife and I called it "the tyranny of the ducks" and eventually learned to push back a bit. In our case, it was not freaking out over putting a car seat in the back of a small 2-door car instead of a big 4-door car.
I find it to be one of the most horrible misconceptions about life that you have to be securely "settled" before having kids. Many older new parents (aruound 35-40) I observe struggle a lot more than we (30) do with raising small children.
People tend to underestimate both the amount of stress that small children are and the gradual reduction of stress capacity that comes with age. You are good at pushing yourself to the limit? That's great. How do you cope with 24/7 low-level stress for months without _any_ break?
My wife and I decided to do the kids thing early in life (relative to other academics) and now are finished with our family planning while yet having to reach any sort of "steady career-path".
Best choice ever.
But I must add that I do this with the strong social safety net of Germany in my back. I'll never be homeless, I'll never go hungry and my children will get an excellent education, _no matter what_.
Of all the ducks, I think the number of doors on the car isn't that high on the priority list :P
However, ensuring that you can still afford to pay all the bills for months --or years, preferably-- on end in the event that your source of income disappears... that seems to be the most important of the ducks. Whether it's a home you own or six months' mortgage/rent is just details.
But if the choice, then, is to live in California and not have kids versus living in Texas and being about to have kids, than I guess I'll never be a father.
That's fine, as long as you recognize that is your choice. "mullingitover" had the thesis that freedom doesn't really have anything to do with not having a family, that it's entirely related to expenses. But not having a family /is/ related to freedom: he values the freedom to live in California more than being able to afford a family while living somewhere else.
I recently moved from SF to Austin, quite liking it here. Doesn't feel like a sacrifice at all and knowing I have the option of starting a family, owning a home, starting a business, or just living large is quite freeing.
Children are not too expensive as long as they don't go to a private school. I am 39 my kids are 17 and 18 now. I have never made more than $55,000 (one income family). The kids are about off to college.
Among all the "Yeah, the 100,000+ salary doesn't quite cut it, I cannot afford kids" you're my hero. You started much earlier than I did (something I regret at times, when my eldest is 17 I'll be past 50..) and I love your trading skills further down this thread (website -> flight hours).
From one dad to another: I'm trying to provide the same. You're inspiring.
It would be pretty awesome to spend that amount. Spending far less my kids are fine. I traded out website work for flight training for son who has 55 flight hours and is going to the University of North Dakota to becomes flight controller. For my daughter she has had Russian language training for about five years now (one lesson a week). I wish I could spend more but at l think the key thing is to give kids a special skill for a career.
Generally even if the theoretical spouse doesn't have an income, if they can provide primary child-care support it is significant in increasing the affordability of having a child.
In this bizarre Leave It To Beaver right-wing fantasy world where the "traditional family" is so critical, that would be an unforgivable violation of the rules.
Describing the traditional Chinese or Roman family structure as "the nuclear family" really seems to be stretching things. From all I have read, they were very little like the 1950s ideal that the phrase evokes. I haven't done a complicated study or anything, but if I were to guess, just from reading about various cultures throughout history, I would figure that clannish extended families were more successful historically than the "two adults form a unit, have N kids and raise them until they leave to find mates and then goto 1" model of the nuclear family. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Indeed, the modern Western "nuclear family" is quite the oddity, historically, with clan-like arrangements dominating history. There are a number of downsides to the modern nuclear family, including inability to spread risk sufficiently, familial alienation, and strong dependency on a single romantic coupling.
The nuclear family is a massive undertaking of concentrated risk that few are properly equipped to deal with. As society continues to globalize, it provides fewer benefits over its alternatives. Visit any nursing home with its abandoned elders to see the fruits of the nuclear family. Is it truly a sustainable model for the future?
>Moral of the story: don't be so quick to condemn the old ways of family life. They have survived for millenia, and will continue to do so long after we're gone.
Humans existed for tens of thousands of years without doing anything interesting. Humans did lots of things then. Most of them haven't survived into modernity; if you want an idea of what humans used to do before agriculture, there are still some cultures existing now that exist at that stage.
The wealth of the West was maybe built on nuclear families; it was also built on colonialism, slavery, white supremacy, patriarchy, and corporatism. Plenty of things have existed in the brief infancy of humanity. Very few of them are worth taking with us into the future.
Starting a family is sometimes the right thing to do. Remaining free of children is also sometimes the right thing to do, just like it's sometimes right to stay single and sometimes right to have a partner, or more than one partner.
Whatever you do, be intentional and do it because it's the right thing for you to do in your life, not because of any societal diktat or because of pressure from other people.
> Whatever you do, be intentional and do it because it's the right thing for you to do in your life
I'm not going to morally judge someone for benign lifestyle decisions, but it's baldly not true that someone can just live whatever life one wants without affecting the people around them.
Keeping your kids out of school, verbal abuse, avoiding vaccinations, trapping people into relationships with pregnancies, running out on child support, substance abuse during pregnancy, unprotected sex with strangers ... there are clearly things that are intentional and (ignorantly) someone's right to do. And they are clearly the wrong thing to do, for the individuals involved and for society at large.
I realize that you probably didn't mean to include all those decisions as valid in your sweeping case for non-judgemental social norms, but the fact is that norms are incredibly important because, especially when it comes to family, decisions do affect other people. If we can agree that some norms are important, the only discussion is about which are important, why, and how much.
I'll go one further and defend social diktat since it's probably not something most people consider. Given that norms are important, I'd rather people enforce these norms outside of the laws. The norm used to be that gay sex was a bad idea. People were (and are) thrown into prison and legally executed because people decided to turn social norms into laws. Since norms are greatly affected by technology and culture, keeping enforcement confined to social pressure provides a level of protection to people who decide to try something outside-the-box.
It might surprise you to hear that there are single people who have children. Furthermore, there are plenty of people who are not single and no not have or want children.
Due to advances in human rights and standard of living, having or not having children is now decoupled from being or not being single. A reversal of this would be a major regression in society.
How do you think the average quality of upbringing is for a child who's parents are separated? How do you think the average quality of upbringing is for children who's parents should be separated, but are not?
Relationships turning sour is a fact of life. If a relationship between two adults sours, I assert that it is almost always better for the child in the long run for the parents to realize this and separate. Of course if we could live in a utopia where every child gets two loving parents who get along with each other, that would be great, but that will never happen and it has never happened in the past. Increased separation rates are an improvement over the alternative.
Wishing that there were fewer single parents is like wishing that fewer people had to experience life-saving surgery when the alternative is needing that surgery but not getting it. Yeah, it would be great if nobody received life-saving surgery because nobody fell ill in the first place... but that's not happening anytime soon.
Edit: @ChuckMcM: I am aware of what he was alluding to. I believe that he has drawn the wrong conclusions from those statistics. Two parents being better than one does not imply that it is better for all of those children with one parent to have their parents still together. Many/most of those children are better off with one parent than with two parents in a shitty relationship.
Crudely:
1 parent < 2 parents (in general)
but more specifically I assert:
2 parents (in a bad relationship) < 1 parent < 2 parents (in a good relationship)
The more children we can shift from the first situation into the second, the better. Moving them into the third would be great, but there is little way to enact public policy to encourage or facilitate that.
What rthomas was alluding to was fairly extensive research into the success outcomes of children of zero (orphans), one (single parent), two (dual parenting), and more than two (village parenting). Those studies suggest that two or more adults sharing parental responsibility for a child increase the child's success outcome significantly.
Even if the 1 parent remarries. It just doesn't work like that, it's not and never will be the same, even if it's somewhat better than having only 1 parent.
Please don't advocate for moving from the first situation into the second.
Coming from someone who's lived it.
2 parents (in a bad relationship) > 1 parent
You can fix it by removing no-fault divorce, and raise the age a man can marry without parent approval to 25. That'll make sure future potential parents pick their partners more carefully.
Yes, sometimes parents in a bad relationships can fix their relationship. Marriage counselling is a great idea for couples who's relationships are on the rocks.
Very often however the situation is well beyond repair. Sometimes the relationships were built on a foundation of abuse in the first place, so there isn't even anything positive to restore. In those situations, we should provide all the encouragement and assistance to single parents as we can muster.
> "Coming from someone who's lived it. 2 parents (in a bad relationship) > 1 parent"
Your experience, while valuable, should be taken for what it is: your experience.
(In the interest of disclosure, I feel that I should mention that my parents have never been separated. I was lucky.)
My parents would still have been married under your brilliant system, and if they'd remained married, it is extremely likely that both my mother and I would have taken our own lives by now, so I'm going to go with "take your ideas and fuck right off".
The very first part of my comment explains that they would have. Keep your ideas of how people should live their lives out of my goddamn life. You can make decisions for yourself, DO NOT make them for others.
If marrying cannot be undone, people would make the choice more carefully.
I'm not saying it should be applied to existing marriages.
'You can make decisions for yourself, DO NOT make them for others.'
Your statement makes no sense. Decisions are made for you by others by the congress, senate, and other government institutions everyday. And how do these congressmen get into office? By promoting their views on what everyone should be doing. You can try to avoid discussing ideas you don't like but it only means decisions will be made for you without your input.
I can't believe how evil you are. You are handing a death sentence to people you've never met for mistakes millions of people make and will continue to make regardless of your proposed rules. It violates basic human rights.
Man writes a few sentences on Hacker News = "Handing out a death sentence". Man writes he is favorable to religious and cultural norms in place for two thousand years except for the last fifty = "evil" and "violating human rights".
Removing No-fault divorce doesn't mean you're not allowed to divorce if there is e.g. domestic violence / abuse. It just means you're not allowed to divorce for no reason. Removing it is hardly a death sentence.
Millions of people gamble on the stock market and lose, are you suggesting instead of punishing people who make mistakes on the stock market via economic losses, they should be compensated? Because it is a basic human right to make investments?
You're also saying that it is a basic human right for one to renege on a vow that is meant to last for life. Then what about the human right to have one's agreements with others respected? Does it not violate your human rights if your wife reneges on the vow she took to be with you until death?
If you aren't willing or aren't able to fulfill the terms of a contract, it is morally wrong for you to agree to it. And once agreed, even if it has become difficult to fulfill the attached obligations, it is morally right to fulfill it nonetheless.
What about you, where are your morals, and what are they?
I would suggest it is you who is evil. By removing consequences to actions you subvert the relationship of society where the virtuous are rewarded. The likes of you leads a society down a path of hedonism where only the self is worshipped, and morals are ignored and culture is destroyed.
I was even giving you the benefit of the doubt that your position wasn't based on religion. But now you've explicitly admitted that you want to inject your religion into law. Your evil knows no bounds.
1 bad parent < 2 parents in a bad relationship (such that it negatively affects the child) < 1 good parent < 2+ good parents/parental figures
So I think in general multiple adults putting real effort toward raising a child is the best scenario. You can say what you like about specific circumstances, but as a whole, multiple adults are clearly better.
Even more, the classic concept of married couples having kids is now in the minority.
At least for me, local statistics show that the majority of children are born to unmarried parents; and only ~65% of school-age children are raised by both parents. So it's not even a case for exceptions, but a socially accepted, very common phenomenon.
"Although unmarried couples are now more likely statistically to have children than married couples – a reflection of the fact that they tend to be younger overall – most children are still being brought up by married couples, as they tend to have larger families."
To question a different part of your argument to other commenters: I am very much under the impression that the nuclear family is a fairly unusual mode of societal organisation, historically speaking, because it doesn't provide enough security to protect one's small family from the unpredictability of life. Instead most cultures have, when unable to provide large scale welfare programmes, adopted a range of other measures for spreading risk throughout kinship and other groups, such as extended families, where success and failure is spread across family members.
edit: I should have also mentioned that I firmly support the greater social freedom, such as the ability to choose the nature of one's family, afforded by our more integrated and (in my view) enlightened states.
What evidence is there that the nuclear family is some sort of evolutionary trait? If anything it's a cultural/religious thing. I believe what would be our "natural" tendency would be for one male to mate with multiple females and impregnate them as often as possible. There is no evidence that "Traditional family values" are the key to a successful economy. The term "nuclear family" is also something that came right around the time of the second world war, an anyone who has taken American History can tell you that the reason our economy thrived in that time was because of the war effort. We also had an extraordinary amount of optimism because at the time we were almost un-arguably the most powerful country in the world.
A) People that don't have kids are single
B) Being single for extended amounts of time leads to some sort of emotional insecurity and "inevitable" burn out
Are, frankly, far more insulting to me than the totally mathematically sound thesis that somebody with 4 kids may have less time in their life for other things, like work.
As for myself, I'm soon to be married, with no plans for kids in the future.
The "old ways of family life" are NOT nuclear family, and are incompatible with that concept. Throughout history, most civilizations have lived and raised their children in extended families (or other community/group arrangements), not nuclear families. The switch from extended family to nuclear family become viable only during/after industrial revolution.
A separate couple rising their kids is not 'traditional family' - a traditional family would delegate significant parts of the childcare effort away from the young adults/parents, so they'd focus on their work; a nuclear family doesn't do that.
Nuclear family is a rather right-wing, conservative word. Its followers do not usually support gay families, for example. Did you mean to use that term?
I can tell you for certain we are NOT heading back that way. Society will only become more acceptable to alternative families.
>Society will inevitably return to its nuclear family origins, as the fun loving singles will not provide offspring in quality and quantity to compete with these traditional families.
On two conditions only. Much of our false wealth must be shed (which will happen within the next 10-20 years) and we must stop enabling/encouraging non-nuclear family population growth. There has to be real consequences to fatherless children and women with 5 kids from 5 daddies. Now we just give unwed mothers money, free stuff and moral permission to do it again and again.
Couldn't agree more. I've often been asked by other founders whether running a startup w/kids is possible. It's hard, but not for the reasons most people without kids would think.
I moved interstate for 3 months to take part in an accelerator, and had to drag my son and pregnant wife with me. That was hard (mostly on them!)
When I was pitching for investment in the US (we're Aussies) and missed my sons 2nd birthday, it nearly broke me in two.
When I went to the US to participate in 500 Startups, 6 weeks after my wife had given birth to our daughter. That was incredibly hard...for everybody.
12 months ago when I didn't take a paycheck for a month, knowing I was failing my family, that was the hardest.
Right now I'm in Sydney, away from my wife and kids, I will miss my Son's karate grading... and I feel like a terrible father for doing so.
But here's the thing. All these things are hard, and I do them because they have to be done. Not because "it might be fun" or "just to see what happens", but because these things will lead us to success.
The bar for what constitutes a worthwhile activity is raised so much higher when you have a family to support. You learn to be more critical on evaluating opportunities, and you only jump when you need to jump. It doesn't cripple you, it forces you to focus on things that move the dial.
Why do we need this to be a hard line? Putting "having kids kills startups" on one side and "parents are the best founders" on the other seems to be at best an oversimplification and at worst outright detrimental to both groups. I'm pretty sure most everybody here knows somebody who got motivated after having kids (or any other major life event), as well as somebody who became less motivated in their own career after such an event.
I get that putting everybody into cute little boxes with solid walls separating them from the other groups makes things easier on our brains, but we'd probably be a lot better off if we tried to imagine others complexly, because that's the reality.
Well, because right now as it stands the default is to be hostile to people with kids. And frankly, if our business culture needs to exploit childless 20 year olds then we're building a toxic, unsustainable environment.
Yeah, but here's the other side of the coin: I've worked with parents (and shared a boss) who always dumped shitwork off onto the people w/o kids. Last second travel to customers, late nights, bugs that trigger support SLA requirements, emergency fixes, etc. And then, amazingly enough, proceed to whine that they don't get the same raises or promotions.
I agree our work environment is hostile to people's personal lives, but when parents use their kids as an excuse to get out of doing their share, instead of advocating for better work life balance for everyone, the reaction of the childless should be completely unsurprising.
Yeah but you and I don't have extremely rigid schedules that, if interrupted, can throw us off kilter for a whole week.
I'm all for promoting healthier work/life balances (4 weeks vacation, anyone?), but it's not like it's mutually exclusive. I'm also friends with a guy with 3 kids and I've seen the chaos that erupts when their routines get screwed with.
I am broadly OK with subsidizing families. It's hard enough as it is? Suck it up, someone's gotta raise the new generation.
If you choose to have kids, you too will get to dump shit work. If you don't choose to have kids you will have 2-3x the disposable income, so it's kind of win-win.
Are you really going to make the case that people with children are more likely to dump work on people without children? Really?
Do you have any sort of actual evidence to support this? (Actual evidence, not anecdotal stories about how somebody with a kid made you do more work on a project once)
Can't speak for the previous poster, but my company has a strict policy - people with children get first consideration for time off. When there is inclement weather, they're the first sent home to take care of their children. When there is extra work to be done, the person with children is the first to be exempt from overtime.
So at my company there is a very strict policy about this, and it gets followed to a T.
It's all anecdotal because no sane company would allow stats on giving the pager to the single person because it won't disturb someone's kids.
I have worked at a place where I got the support pager on a holiday because I was single. I have also had to do support in the middle of the night because the person with children didn't answer because he set the volume low (so as not to disturb his wife) and didn't wake-up.
To be fair, family problems (kid is sick, picking up Junior from soccer practice) are much more likely to be excused absences than other lifestyle problems (I have a date the night before, chores are piling up, I have roommate issues).
I personally wouldn't call that 'dumping work', but parents with young kids do require more days off due to sickness, because you're off also on days when you're okay but your kids are sick.
Anecdotally, they also seem to get sick more (kindergartens as vectors for spreading flu? sleep-deprivation lowered immunity? just guessing), but the first part is obviously true.
I agree. But we aren't going to fix that by claiming the opposite case as fact. Culture isn't something that you can average: 2 polarized viewpoints do not balance each other out, they just lead to HN comment wars and accusations of bias by both "sides".
What polarization? This is pretty much black and white.
Either your business model requires the exploitation of cheap labour, or it doesn't and we're being crappy for no good reason.
Now, we can talk about say the specific ways in which we subsidize families that lead to bad urbanization patterns and that's acceptable - tho as a childless 20something I'm broadly OK with subsidizing families.
But I'm having a hard time imagining an alternate argument that doesn't end up being an apologia for abusive work relationships, but I'd be happy to hear another side to it.
I think we're perhaps having two different discussions. This article discusses whether or not being a parent prevents someone from also being a successful founder. It isn't a discussion of the larger and distinctly separate issue regarding how founders treat their own workforces.
The two polarized extremes I was referring to are the view cited by the article and the opposite it is attempting to dispute: "Being a parent makes you a more motivated founder" and "being a parent is a detriment to being a founder", respectively.
Totally relate. My two year old son actually prevents me from burning out. Everyday, when I get home, my wife says "your turn!" and I transform into Daddy. We play soccer, we play music, we play, I bathe him, I feed him, I tuck him in.
Code? What cod... wait, right, I'm a developer. Gosh, that problem I'm stuck at is really diffic... Wait, I got it! I know what way to go now and try to solve that.
Yes, you'll be inspired to provide for your family being in start-up mode. It probably will push you harder than if you weren't nested. But, convetionally, your partner will encourage you to engage in much more stable financial endeavours (ie, anything but start-ups).
As they should too. Why? Because, let's face it; most people's ideas are pretty shitty. That's not a secret around here ... so let's put that out there. As we know, even if you do have a super great idea, there is so much luck required to break through.
I don't mean to sound grinchy on a Ycombinator forum, but let's just address the reality here. The times we live in is where The Social Network has become like a founding myth of a 21st century goldrush. People are over educated and bored with job-jobs, so wishful thinking pushes them into developing their genius apps and half-baked Facebook killers.
I don't want to discourage people from being creative and innovative, but I think all of this has to be considered in this discussion of raising a family and doing something extremely financially risky like a startup.
It depends on your specific situation. Kids will generally make you more risk averse, but working partners will make you less risk averse. The founder at the startup where I worked (who had three kids at the time), was able to bootstrap because his wife's job was enough to pay the mortgage and health insurance.
I personally feel a lot more empowered to make risky career moves because my wife could support the family by herself if need be.
I've posted this before but it seems relevant here to highlight the prejudice that people with families will sometimes face.
Ripped directly from a rejection letter I received:
"I think instead of making a more detailed offer, I should consider certain facts.
For starters, you have a family and that'll be the driving force behind all your decisions. Secondly, you will not be able to be here in the program with me. Ideally, I want someone who could be here though not necessary. More importantly, it's the family situation I consider. I've worked developers before with family and the company died largely because of that. I don't want to say that'll happen but I worry.
This other candidate is like me. No responsibilities except {COMPANY NAME}. That makes life less complicated. Based on this - nothing to do with skills - it's best that him and I work together. "
The program was one of the startup accelerators (not YC). He was right that my family would have been the driving force behind all my decisions. He was wrong in thinking that's a bad thing. I can't imagine a bigger motivator than my family. When you have kids, failure just isn't an option.
>>> No responsibilities except {COMPANY NAME}. That makes life less complicated. Based on this - nothing to do with skills - it's best that him and I work together.
Skills include management skills such as working with people who are not all alike.
Only if you assume you're going to fail. No entrepreneur goes into it thinking it's not going to work out. The difference is that a parent doesn't say "things look rough...fuck it, I'll sleep on a friends couch for a couple of weeks, go to some networking events and start something different". We're in for the long haul.
What a crock of shit. Most companies fail, and you can blame the guy with a family as the main source of failure? I wonder what he will blame the next failure on.
Yeah, I thought the joy over kids is sometimes just a self-delusion or a way of resolve cognitive dissonance (as a lot of time is 'lost'). Obviously I can't prove what I'm saying, but
1) it's an infinite source of happiness and joy
2) my wife can actually work much more efficiently since she takes care of her, as somehow she's not that distracted in her (less) 'free time'.
Don't forget #3: careerism's benefits are vastly overstated in culture because that's what Western society fixates on. Reading LinkedIn's 'influencer' articles makes me want to vomit: yet another treatise on why I'm not working hard enough to get the precious corner office or that promotion. (Who writes this crap?)
As I get older I get wiser, and I'm not so stupidly entertained by the occasional trinkets thrown to me by my career. Everything works better when it's in it's proper place -- balanced. It took several years of imbalance, lots of misplaced ambition, and a severe burnout to realize this. I don't expect that I would have figured it out until I experienced it firsthand.
It's just a job. It doesn't define you, and you don't have to make a difference to be a worthwhile person.
Also one of the benefits of being a programmer is that "working smarter, not harder" is really a thing. If you're blessed with the curiosity and tenacity that being a programmer requires, then reflecting and improving your craft can make outsize returns far more than simply grinding yourself down to a nubbin (which for some jobs in some places is the only way to survive).
Exactly. I put a lot of time and thinking into music because it gives the developer side of me time to breathe, think, and ruminate on the hammock to arrive at better insights.
I think a lot of this "always on" crap that people want to think they have to do stems from insecurity. Definitely do side projects/open source/other things as you want to, but it's not required in any form. The result is substantially better when you do it because you really want to, not because you're trying to level up your resume.
My take: I got two kids, one's not yet 1.5 years old, the other one is a month old.
It's hard. I have tremendous respect for my wife, because - she's the one spending the most time with the kids. That said: I do work from home and this DOES influence my ability to work.
I wouldn't want to miss them. They are great. I agree with the OP that they help you in some ways (keeping a schedule, logistics, making sure that you're not slacking off during the day and getting into a frenzy mode at night).
But they have a (cough) cost. I'm looking left and right for a job that would make me happier. I usually don't even dare to send an application (because hey, could I actually take it? I mean.. probation time etc. even if they'd take me in) and if I do I usually know that I won't risk it either.
The big risk is not productivity. That can be avoided and a decent structure (support in your family, a good understanding with your SO) solves most of the standard "But aren't kids dragging you down?" issues.
But flexibility is truly lost, unless you have lots of savings or your SO earns enough money (BZZZZT). At this point in time I'm absolutely certain that I'll never start a company of my own (okay, okay, let's be honest: The kids are not to blame for most of the issues: I don't even have a decent idea. I'm saying: I wouldn't, even with the perfect pitch) and I'm even reasonably sure that I'll stick with my current company for a loooong time.
For safety, family. I just cannot experiment anymore.
My bet is that you probably have a huge mortgage to pay and little savings. That is what is killing you.
I have a kid, however we also have no mortgage, no cars(live in a centre of a city) and can save quite a bit per month.
I think stable is dangerous, being dependent on employment from someone is terrible. Basically I live with assumption that I might need to look for a new gig next week. So keep my network maintained, my skill continuously sharpened etc. Do not fear losing job embrace it!
Good bet, but wrong. I don't own a thing, I'm renting an apartment. Single income, wife's never started (due to the kids, plans to start Real Soon Now™).
I don't fear losing my job. Without bragging: I'm reasonably sure that I'm among the best developers the company has, easily. My life's even quite relaxed, due to my (earned) status. It's just boring. And sometimes annoying.
So I'm not afraid of losing my job. That is totally possible, but imo quite unlikely at this point. I'm just afraid of actively looking for a 'fun job'.
Had to try, I know a few people like what I described.
Do not be afraid to look for fun job. Worst case happens you go there people hate you and fire you during probation. You are good you will find something else. Best part part you are not going to feel what if.. I am not saying put all your savings into building and AI startup or new Facebook lol. Love your life and you and your kid will be happier for it
i am just about to change my career, i have 3 kids under 4. it is a huge risk, but the potential reward is also huge. why am i doing it? well the pay off would be a much better life for my family than is currently possible. i am giving up promotion and stability for a sideways move and retraining. the fact i have kids is what is driving me to experiment rather than seek safety.
This isn't a problem that good savings can't solve. If it's too hard to come up with savings, the cost of having a family of three is probably too high.
I'm not denigrating families of three, I'm criticizing the way current costs and benefits of Western governments make it too expensive for responsible people to have decent-sized families.
I don't think I could muster the courage to do just that. Maybe your situation is different (here, we got just one income: Mine. No savings account or any property) or maybe you're just braver than me.
Again, I wish you all the best with your change of career, I just cannot imagine doing that myself.
The real factor is whether or not your spouse takes care of the children completely. Or if you have your parents at home taking care of the kids.
Because from my own experience, taking care of a newborn with the two spouses both working demanding jobs is extremely, extremely hard. It's just about the hardest thing I've ever done, and my wife agrees. We are both exhausted every day, weekends are even harder than the weekdays, and time to ourselves is the most precious commodity we have and the thing we have the least of.
If you can't have your parents take care of the kid during the day, or if you can't afford a nanny, then the issues related to day care compound the situation a great deal.
If one of the spouses agrees to completely take care of the kid, it makes it a lot easier to spend the extra energy, because it gives you the flexibility required to do things that startups need. The thing that is the most limiting is time and schedule flexibility, and energy. Without that flexibility, the ability to go beyond what is expected is extremely hard, in my own experience.
What having a daughter (almost 5) taught me is how to time box. To some extent you can hack it with pomodoro technique or other mental tricks, but there's nothing like a hard out to keep efficiency at the front of mind. I do now in 8 hours what I used to do in 12 because I figured I had all night.
People with no kids, please don't listen to anyone telling you how a great source of motivation these adorable little prats are. I've personally been fucked in so many unimaginable since my kid was born. Really think about it hard before committing to such madness.
Awesome. A great professor said the best grad students were the married ones because they knew how to manage time. I believe the same is true for founders with kids.
It seems to a childless me that today society forces you to spend unrealistic amount of time on children.
Looking after them, hauling them around, catering to their needs. If you don't do that you are suspicious and may even become a criminal: How dare you leave your 10yo kid alone and let her use internets unsupervised?
I'm not sure I want that. It wasn't like that when I was a kid, I came from school on foot, boiled some food, made homework while parents were busy making money, even helped them with that a bit. Now it's supposed to be one way street.
If society want everybody to have children they should whoa whoa take it easy.
Even if you hadn't pointed out that you didn't have children, the rest of your comment made it plain.
Society doesn't force you to spend an "unrealistic amount of time on children", if anything, it's the opposite, forcing you to spend too much time away from them.
There's nothing wrong with making sure your children are independent and can do things on their own, and by the age of 10 I'd expect them to be capable of quite a bit of independence. However, even at that age, they're still aggregating enormous of new information about the world, daily. You should around to help guide them, teach them, or just be a sounding board for them to bounce ideas off of.
You seem to be confusing normal child rearing with the "helicopter parent" meme.
You should especially re-read your own sentence:
"Looking after them, hauling them around, catering to their needs. If you don't do that you are suspicious and may even become a criminal"
catering to their needs. Well I certainly hope if you have children you'd be willing to meet their needs!
Children actually have quite basic needs. Helicopter over protective parents are meme but also a reality as well. One of my friends spent 2k on a stroller.. another has 4 strollers.. another bought a 35k car because his current 4 year old Civic was not comfortable enough for his one kid (he has no savings)
Children require you to feed, them have roof over their head, have clothing and teach them stuff by example. They do not require you to follow them around 24/7 making sure they don't get hurt or come into contact with outside world.
When we had our kid I was really afraid that somehow I will turn into one of those crazy friends I have. It did not happen.. keeping wife from going there is taking some effort though.
I don't think society wants everyone to have children. That would be a terrible idea. If it's not something you want to do then you absolutely shouldn't do it. You should reserve the right to change your mind, though. ;)
And yes, if you don't have kids of your own, the time spent on them seems kind of insane. After you have them, it still seems like a lot of time, but most people would tell you it's worth it.
And this is a horrifying thought for a 20-something with no kids and what they perceive as limitless freedom, opportunity, and immortality.
Having a family and shifting into an "it's not about me anymore" frame of mind probably sounds worse than death to them. I know it would have at one point in my life.
Absolutely. My (2) kids definitely require my attention and devotion, but in terms of "getting me focused on the important stuff," they are miracle workers.
Having a supportive spouse is an amazing boon, too, and one that should not be overlooked in this discussion.
The thing that strikes me about arguments like these is that they are fundamentally one sided. Without even getting into the walking confirmation bias of using your self as an example, the author sets this up so that a simple proportion of people who will just flat out disagree.
When it really comes down to it starting something is really about the passion to do it. If you want to succeed the thing you want to succeed at needs to be an idea that you can't get out of your head. So that when you are playing with your kids or managing your bowling league your subconscious brain continues to work away at the idea of moving your business forward.
I have known people who tried to start businesses with kids and succeeded I have also known people who start businesses with kids and fail miserably.
In the end it is because having kids or not having kids is going to have nothing to do with your success or failure. Being dedicated and inspired to succeed will.
Maybe you get your inspiration from your kids as the OP does, or maybe you just really want to see the world with another web framework. Either way, if you truly want it to happen then you will make a version of it work.
I have several kids. I spend a lot of time with them, regularly, and this is non-negotiable, according to the personal philosophies I hold. It's also more enjoyable than time spent doing really anything else. Ostensibly, I have less time for coding or other activities involved with building a business.
However, having children has increased my motivation and productivity. It's as if limiting available time increases the quantity of available focus. I am also significantly more disciplined than I was as a childless bachelor. I taught myself to code after having my first child.
A tip for new parents: if you can, get up early rather than staying up late to work on your personal projects. This has two advantages: 1) your best effort will be given to your own projects; and 2) you won't be looking forward to getting away from your family to do work after hours.
I'm not making the argument that any person will be more productive with kids. Just retelling my experience.
What do wages say about the relative productivity of people with and without kids? So far as I know people with kids tend to earn more. I once read about a study, finding that among unskilled single women in a neighborhood in Chicago, those with kids tended to have higher wage jobs.
Some anecdata: I had a very comfortable engineering job when my first kid was born, but it was pretty much dead-end in terms of salary. I re-evaluated my career, and applied for a higher paying job that is widely regarded as being difficult, boring, political, and stressful.
All of the applicants, and from what I can tell, virtually all of the people who hold those crappy but higher paying jobs, have kids. I asked a bachelor why he didn't apply for the job, and he said: "Are you kidding me, I want to enjoy my evenings and weekends, and I have no reason to make more money."
Leonardo Da Vinci would disagree. In a letter to his brother he answered him to the news of the birth of his nephew, that he had created himself a great distraction.
> This is sent merely to inform you that a short time ago I received a letter from you from which I learnt that you have had an heir, which circumstance I understand has afforded you a great deal of pleasure. Now in so far as I had judged you to be possessed of prudence I am now entirely convinced that I am as far removed from having an accurate judgment as you are from prudence; seeing that you have been congratulating yourself in having created a watchful enemy, who will strive with all his energies after liberty, which can only come into being at your death.
I'm the founder of a moderately sucessful infosec startup, and my child was born at the same time. It was hard for everybody. Lets face it, startups take much more time than a regular job, and we don't have any of the state-given benefits.
One important rule that I have is minimize the time away from home. I have to travel a lot and I've found that for kids, time perception is different than for adults. A week seems short time for a 35 year old, but it's an eternity for a toddler.
For that reason I try to stay away from home only the necessary time and not a single hour more. Thats a limitation that I try to balance offering experience and profesionality.
And also, I always try to come back with a lot of gifts :)
> I know this because I used to be that person, until I met my wife who showed me there's more to life than getting drunk every weekend.
There's an overpowering tendency to solve for a perfect "steady state" solution to optimizing one's behavior. You see this tendency in nutrition, psychology, everywhere in relation to biological things.
It's dead wrong.
Sometimes "cycling" between states is the optimal approach, not steady-state do one thing, eat one thing, etc. Variety can help you more consistently reach your goals. Forcing yourself to totally unwind can allow you to focus more intensely for much longer without burning out. I quite dislike this myth that you have to be boring to be successful.
Actually, whether children are a distraction or a motivation varies from one person to the other. There is no right answer that covers everybody.
Children would be a distraction to me right now. I know myself better than anybody else knows me, and I'm the only one that can rationally judge this for me.
Over the prior 15 years, I couldn't have lived the way I chose to, or made the business/life decisions I did, while being responsible, if I had had children. That included being so strapped I could barely feed myself, much less children. It would have been wildly ignorant to have had a child at that point.
If you do a startup while having a family, you are either desperate (can't get a decent job) or truly motivated by your idea (in the way true believers are and don't get a job by choice).
A false dichotomy. Plenty of people with both families and decent jobs choose to start successful, sustainable, and profitable businesses each year. Some of these people are "true believers" in their ideas, and some have other motivators, like potential profits. Not all startups are an all-or-nothing proposition. Nor should they be.
Pretty much all new businesses, no matter if they're tech startups or corner stores, have 80+% chance of failing within their first year. You don't get to choose to start a profitable business - you can put your best effort to try and make it so, but even that is just a gamble.
If your family can afford the income hit during a failed company without the kids suffering - that's great. But if it can't, but you simply believe that it will be successful - then that's just lying to them and yourself.
You are right that people don't choose to start profitable businesses. They aim for profitability. Perhaps I should have written "...choose to start businesses, a few of which will become successful, sustainable, and profitable." But this does not change the fact that the original comment by kashkhan is logically flawed. Starting a business with a family is not necessarily an act of desperation or true belief; it's often a part-time endeavor, completed in addition to familial and work duties with the hope of becoming something more. That one must quit one's day job and dedicate 90-hour-plus weeks to properly do a startup is a myth propagated by venture capitalists who want quick returns on their investments.
The intent of startups in the Hacker News context is not mere profitability. I can start selling fruit from a bike part time on the side and make a profit but I don't think many here will count that as a startup.
The intent of startups is to make it big. To make it big, 100% effort is a requirement. I am not discounting people who can do 200% (two jobs) but if you want to do a fulltime job plus a startup plus give time to your family, and do all three adequately, you'd have to be superman who needs no sleep. For the rest of us mortals with families that we want to live with and not merely exist with, two full time jobs, one of which is a startup is not possible. We might do it transitionally, but not more than a few months.
The source of the desperation, I believe, is not correctly presumed by yourself. But the combination of both is possible. And I believe a force to be reckoned with.
Founders are, more often than not and perhaps even as-written, passionate people. People who have drive, focus, and a vision. For some people, their drive comes from their families. For others, it doesn't. All I am seeing in this thread is parents speaking up about how their children are their drive. That's really cool, but to also turn around and state that people without families walk an inevitable path to burnout is ridiculous to me. This thread is little more than an echo chamber.
I don't know if I buy the pitch in the article 100%, but it makes some good points.
I did find one quote in the article particularly interesting: "Immediately one of the more prominent HN members pointed out that I'm somehow at a disatvantage since there's a version of me out there without being burdened by having to support a family and thus has a bigger chance of success."
I would say that all else being equal, you are more likely to be successful in launching a startup if you don't have kids. That said, everything is rarely equal. I don't know too many people in my age group who devote themselves 100% to work. Even if they're a miserable person with no hobbies, they at the very least spend a lot of time trying to find relationships. If they don't, it has a really negative effect on their emotional state. They spend a lot more time with friends to get all the necessary social interaction. In other words, unless you're extremely introverted, having a family isn't purely a cost on your time--it satisfies certain emotional and social needs that would otherwise take time to meet.
My, at times perceived, 'neglecting' of past jobs in favor of being available for my wife and son is the very reason my wage has tripled and I'm now doing the work I love. Getting let go from two jobs were the best things to happen to my career AND my dreams of starting a start-up. If it wasn't for the focus that having a family to provide for, and build a future for, I personally would not have the ambition to take the risks and work and push myself like I have. I wouldn't be a programmer and I wouldn't still have the vision of the company and future I intend to create.
Children are startups. They are practices for startups. They entail commitment, chaos, emotional chaos, growth and faith and all that effort and sweat and tears and you don't have a clue as to how they are going to turn out until many many years and tears into the project. And even then it's still a guess as to where things will go.
And, at the end of the day, every innovator and humanity builder was a kid. Even if my startup doesn't go where I hope it will, I've got eggs in more than one basket. :)
Anecdote != data, and speaking as someone in his early 40s, who's single and childless, you do grow out of that "drunk every weekend" phase fairly quickly. Or at least, it's 'quickly' from where I'm standing. It gets increasingly rarer from your late 20s onwards, whether you have children or not.
Since you're going to provide nothing but anecdote after condescending with != data, I'll provide mine. As someone in his late 40s, the majority of my age and social group who are "single and childless" are poor impulse control horny drunks. Love every one of them, but it is what it is. The second most numerous are gay, many of whom are now becoming not-single as laws change. Most of the remainder are sociopaths. But anecdote != data so feel free to pretend my reality doesn't exist.
Next time you accuse someone of being condescending, perhaps don't do it yourself in response. Lead by example rather than respond in the same kind that you deride.
So you being condescending is fine, but me returning the favor is worthy of a snotty, feigned hi-brow response. You're a hypocrite, as well as condescending.
Well, yes. If you're going to ping someone for a misdeed, don't turn around and do it yourself. That's what being a hypocrite is. Ironic that first you ping be for being condescending, and then when it's pointed out that you're doing the same, you then hypocritically accuse me of being a hypocrite. Ironic also that you ping me for not being able to take criticism, but you've got to lash out if you're criticised yourself.
And, frankly, screw the anti-intellectualism that considers that remark of mine a 'high-brow' response.
Children's interests is a very tired and aggravating rhetorical tool, certainly, but putting a reductio ad Hitlerum into everything isn't doing anything but showing your lack of imagination or your ideological stubbornness.
Kids are magical motivators and when you have one you become a much more aware person of others needs. I think this helps in every aspect of life.
Most of the product shippers I know have kids, you also have to put up with less single person life troubles at work (you think hearing about people's kids is annoying...).
When you have a kid the focus is immediately off yourself and on the work to make that kid smile as much as possible and have a happy life. I have also found that married programmers seem to stick around longer and are less flaky because they have to be.
People that think kids are a distraction probably don't have them.
It really depends on what ones priorities are. If someone is really in the middle of starting up or even immensely enjoying the current work that she ends up spending most of the time in office, why the hell would you want kids?
Raising decent kids requires proper planning and you need time to observe them and change those plans accordingly if required. Only when you have decided to chill down on work and consider yourself ready for another interesting venture should you go ahead and have kids. Think about your priorities, period.
This can go many ways. I would say on average a startup is unhealthy for someone with kids but if you're a highly organized and motivated person it isn't that difficult.
Each child you have is one more reason to 'make it'. They are the main motivation of my work. Without them I don't know how motivated I would be to succeed.
Even if some dudebro can't understand how positive having a kid is for your life, they do understand when I tell them about coming home, looking at your child, and saying to yourself "I can not fail, that is why, and I will do everything in my power not to". Having something to motivate you that way is universal.
It is quite ironic that the vast wealth accumulated by the western world, which was built upon the nuclear family as its foundation, has now allowed the next generation such freedom that they can dally as singles for significant portions of their lives. That being said, singles are very productive in short bursts, but these are unstable and fuelled by emotional insecurity which, as mentioned in the article, inevitably lead to burnout.
Society will inevitably return to its nuclear family origins, as the fun loving singles will not provide offspring in quality and quantity to compete with these traditional families.
Moral of the story: don't be so quick to condemn the old ways of family life. They have survived for millenia, and will continue to do so long after we're gone.