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

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Asking for a friend :)

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?

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.

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.

But it's good for environmental reasons to not have kids anyway.

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!

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.