The passionate hunger to do something significant and meaningful with my life was a major reason I took care never to have any children. Having grown up in a large family within a religious subculture full of other large families, the amount of time and attention children consume was crystal clear from a young age, and I knew that I was going to need every scrap of energy I could spare for the work I wanted to do.
Years later, after I had to accept the failure of my ambitions, there was an opportunity to become the dad of a kid who needed one. So here I am being a dad after all, and it's been a good experience. Difficult, of course, and often frustrating, but worthwhile; I have no regrets - neither about this choice, nor the one I made when I was young.
Thanks for sharing! I remember thinking pre-kids mostly about how much work they would be but not really considering the joy they bring too. Like I knew they would, but vastly underestimated what effect that would have on my life.
I don't particularly regret any of my choices either, but knowing what I do now, would have chosen to have kids earlier in my life.
I find it funny that I spent my 20s and 30s doing everything in my power to avoid having kids and at this stage in my life I’m doing everything to have kids.
I do feel that 30 year old me would definitely be in better shape to chase kids around.
This. I’m an old dad. I realized two years ago that to keep up with my pre-teens I had to change my lifestyle. For me that meant cutting out alcohol, not eating processed foods, avoiding sugar, reduced caffeine, way more protein and doing calisthenics. I sleep well and I have energy. I just have to keep this up for 10 more years when my youngest will be 21, then I can die. ;-)
Same here in almost all ways, except the caffeine. What was the benefit there? My hot pots keep me going. Once my wife hits menopause I might also consider TRT. I'm almost certainly not low by the standards of the average American, let alone for my age, but it's gonna keep falling as I age and wouldn't mind that extra oomph.
There’s never a right time to have kids. But having them older has its perks. You are much more calmed, patient, you are wiser and likely financially stable. Throwing money at problems definitely makes life 10X easier when you have kids, something most people can’t do in their 20s or even 30s.
I disagree. As a father of nine children, I submit that the best time to have children is when you’re young. The next best time is now.
Sure, you’ll be poor, and you’ll make lots of mistakes. But how do you know you’ll be able to have children later? And what’s so important now that makes it worth putting off children?
Not to discount that it’s great when you play with your kids, but it’s different when your kids play together, and in particular when you can’t play that they have someone to interact with.
Yeah, the group dynamics of, say, a family with two children:
1. Kid A plays with Kid B
2. Kid A plays alone and Kid B plays alone
As compared to a three-child household:
1. Kids A, B and C play together
2. Kid A plays with Kid B, Kid C plays alone
3. Kid A plays with Kid C, Kid B plays alone
4. Kid B plays with Kid C, Kid A plays alone
5. Kid A, Kid B and Kid C all play alone
So, in a bigger family, many more communication patterns between children can arise, which, among other things, might develop the child's empathy etc.
Adding mom and dad as "players" would give us many more possible scenarios here (Kid A playing with mom, Kid B alone or with dad, etc).
I'm a father of two with a low income, and I would like to have a third child for precisely the above described reason. As a sociologist in my country put it -- somewhat harsh words maybe, but probably largely true: a single child might get spoiled, two children may start competing too heavily, but three children and above is company.
Not only do they play but they also learn to care for each other. Parental effort doesn't increase uniformly with each child – if you're lucky and have done a good job parenting them, children create a society and help with raising each other.
My dad was 42 when I was born, and he was keeping up with me on hikes in my early 20s (his mid 60s). I haven't done much hiking with him lately, but he's going on 50 mile bike rides at 70.
I think having kids late can help people stay young longer, if you let it.
> I do feel that 30 year old me would definitely be in better shape to chase kids around.
Can confirm that starting at 30 makes it relatively easy to keep up. Still not early enough though. Wish I’d started at 25.
It’s mostly a matter of effort though. You’ll become very good at it out of sheer need if you genuinely want to keep up. In far better shape now than I was at 30, mentally and physically.
100% on this. In my life I have 0 regrets except not having kids younger. I was never especially fond of kids, but it turns I out love my own more than I imagined possible, and have more fun with them I ever thought I would! I only wish we could have many more but given when we started, the odds of having more than 2 are very low. The amount of joy and life they bring to you and to your house is something you can't really appreciate until you've had them. To say nothing of the sort of fulfillment and life satisfaction they bring.
My parent's goal was to get me to go to college. My goal for my kids is to teach them the importance of having kids early. The fact it might help in having a grandkid or two before I kick the bucket is just a wee bit of icing on that cake. I think the ideal time to start is probably in your 20s. This also maximizes the amount of time you'll get to spend with your kids. I'm quite 'jealous' (sans the negative connotations) of those who will get to see their kids live til retirement, but hey - they made wiser decisions, so hopefully I can help encourage my children to do the same.
> I was never especially fond of kids, but it turns I out love my own more than I imagined possible, and have more fun with them I ever thought I would!
I for a change am happy I had my kids in late 30s / 40. I am certainly wiser, way more experienced with world, humans, got to be successful and in much better financial position which also helped my parents to have better retirement.
I wasn't a full adult in my 20s, too naive, too trusting, undefined for the lack of better words, not experienced with various types of women (laugh all you want, this was probably the most important experience from all for me, it afterwards formed my choice of wife which is often the most important choice in one's life).
Plus I've managed in a decade before having kids to travel the world backpacking, various experiences that changed me for the better and basically reinvented myself, on my own. I don't come from competitive or nurturing environment, nobody expected anything from me. I've found my passions in various mountain/extreme sports. None of that would happen if I had kids earlier, thats very clear when looking at peers who took the other trajectory.
If my kids will have their kids young or older is completely up to them, I find it selfish to push any expectations on them, they (will) live vastly different life compared to me, I can just respect their choices and love them regardless.
> Having grown up in a large family within a religious subculture full of other large families, the amount of time and attention children consume was crystal clear
Similar experience here growing up Mennonite (they’re sorta like the Amish but more moderate).
I’m one of the only remaining men in my family without kids, but those that do have kids (and there’s a lot of them) are super busy. This is at least partially offset by their wives who are more on the traditional side.
I got sort of lucky early in my career because I had a talent that was discovered in a national network. Which meant I found myself writing national strategies for IT in our public sector (Denmark) at my late 20ies. It felt great for a year, or maybe two. When it stopped being fun though, it sort of hit me hard. I did enjoy writing and working on the strategies with other people. All the "glamour" around it, advicing politicians, going to conferences, networking with all sorts of "important" people. That got to me on one of the many train rides I had to take. I know a 3 hour commute might not be a lot to Americans or people in larger countries in general, but here it's a life time. Eventually I didn't know why I was going on them, so I quit and went back to being a nerd in a basement. Having my first child was the kick I needed to push me to where I was already heading though. I would've likely ridden the career ladder for a lot longer if I hadn't become a dad.
I rarely speak about it but something about reading you accepting the failure of your ambitions made me want to do it. Are you sure it's a failure? For me family life turned out to be what I wanted and work is just a fun place which makes me money, but I totally get why people want to do it the opposite way. In some ways you could say that I did something significant, but it made me misserable. So I failed just as much as you, if not more.
I don't regret any of it either though. It's what made me who I am.
I'd also agree with this. Children don't make you give up your ambitions in the least. However they will almost certainly make you rethink what is important in life. It's not even conscious like an 'ok I give this up, in order to get that' but rather they just make you feel very differently, in a way that you can't really explain. But it's good, very good.
I think one of the reasons that a lot of successful founders are in their mid-40s is because they combine 20ish years of experience with an empty nest after kids are out on their own.
That just tells us the person wasn’t a good parent either. Your comment assumes the only way to parent is to manipulate, patronize, etc. That’s just one perspective though.
There are other ways to parent that are actually fantastic management training - figuring out how to think from another human’s POV, acknowledge their frustrations, help them build the skills to handle their feelings, etc.
It turns out great parenting is to a first degree about great relationship skills.
I feel like when young people think they want to do significant and meaningful things, they think about things that will make them famous in one way or another. Most of such things are neither significant nor meaningful.
I used to think this way, and then I realised that I actually want to be famous and respected. After some time, I realised that I just wanted the approval of people. And finally I realised all I wanted was to feel loved and cared for.
That's unnecessarily pessimistic. I think it's much more common for drive people to want to make a significant positive impact on the world, rather than becoming famous.
Doesn't matter either way, though, once you realize you're just a blip like the other 8,000,000,000 people on this earth.
Agreed. I'm well travelled. Have had a very fun and satisfying dating life. A great career. Accomplished many life goals. Nothing comes close to fatherhood.
Which frustrates me immensely, because I feel that society at large did everything it could to convince me that parenthood is terrible. Movies and TV shows portrayed only the bad. Teachers told me that becoming a parent was the worst thing in the whole world. A wide range of celebrities spend their days posting about how amazing it is to be without children.
I accept that there are some parents out there who regret their decision, but research shows them to be a vanishingly small minority. The VAST majority of parents report greater meaning, more love, personal growth, enjoyment, fulfillment, etc. Something has become quite sick in modern society when we provide such an imbalanced and untrue message to young people.
Interesting perspective. Your first paragraph also describes my experience, perfectly.
However, even though I also think nothing comes even close to parenthood for me, my perspective is that society strongly encourages —I'd even say strongly pressures— people to have kids, to feel that if you don't, it's almost like something is wrong with you. Maybe we're just different generations? :-)
> Agreed. I'm well travelled. Have had a very fun and satisfying dating life. A great career. Accomplished many life goals. Nothing comes close to fatherhood.
I completely agree with you. But I can't say around me, people, movies, society ever sent the message that parenthood is terrible. The way I interpret the message was always "this was hard, this was grueling, but I wouldn't change it for the world". I didn't get this apparent contradiction until it was my turn.
I think the people who miss almost all of these "tickboxes" and can somehow link it to the kids become unhappy with parenthood. If they ever feel their personal time, romance, career, success suffered because of the focus on the children, they will end up in the "disappointment" camp.
I never personally met anyone who was willing to admit regret of having children but I did meet people who were disappointed and put a veiled blame for their failure on the children.
It's difficult to explain ... an intensely personal experience. Every child is different. Every parent is different. Every culture has their own way of doing things ... yet children are the one universally shared thing that binds our giant collective together ...
When I am holding Henry and I tickle him, I can feel him laughing all the way to his toes. And I realize, my God, I had forgotten ... how unbelievably wonderful it is that any of us exist at all.
Here I am with this tiny, warm body so close to me, breathing so fast he can barely catch up, sharing his newfound joy of simply being alive with me. The sublime joy of this moment, and all the other milestones – the first smile, the first laugh, the first 'dada' or 'mama' ... The highs are so incredibly high that you'll get vertigo and wonder if you can ever reach that feeling again. But you peak ever higher and higher, with dizzying regularity ... a constant rollercoaster of extreme highs and lows.
Except... a million reasons where they will either not understand, or they should have not become a parent.
The problem with the "The Most Infuriating Answer" is that it entirely neglects facts, and only those say it who do have a good experience with it.
Happy for you, internet stranger. Just like I am happy for all of those around me: you all are the ones who do good parenting.
In case you also want to become a better person in general, I recommend to stop being condescending, and not to say this ever again to anyone. You hurt more than you think you are wise.
Agree with the sibling comment. As a new father, nothing - and I mean absolutely nothing - can describe the love, adoration and reverence that parents feel for their children. To be understood, it must be experienced. There is simply no other way.
+1. I also felt this huge gap between knowing (intellectually) what parenting is and actually experiencing it. It really changes you, to the point that now, when I talk to childless people my age, I feel like we're fundamentally differently. I think I can perceive fairly accurately whether someone my age is a parent after just a few minutes of general conversation (obviously, without having to visit adjacent topics).
I experienced this so strongly I spent some time actually writing a poem (in Spanish) about it: https://alejo.ch/39l
> It really changes you, to the point that now, when I talk to childless people my age, I feel like we're fundamentally differently.
As a childless person, the inverse is equally true. I have wildly different levels of obligation and constraint - and that difference typically becomes obvious very very quickly. I don't say that as a better/worse, just different.
You can ask that question about a lot of things whether it's one entrepeneurial baby or their nature conservation effort which reveals it to be somewhat meaningless question.
Because any fault of theirs feels like a fault of yours, but you learn that you cannot fix faults of theirs like you can (try to) fix faults of yours. You learn to become a parent, a teacher, a guide, a kind of friend, in the most deeply connected relationship you’ll ever have. A relationship that exposes you to every fault of yourself, while you feel the deepest love for and connection with your children. A connection that’s not even always reciprocated. Parenting is the true Aristotelian politeia.
It is kinda weird, because you feel so much more tired all the time. Yet at the same time you have so much more motivation to do _everything_. It is like I feel 50% more tired, yet 200% more engaged with everything I do. It really makes your life a lot more meaningful.
Before I would waste so much time engaging on video games / internet-browsing / TV-youtube / etc and just not enjoying the time I spent. It felt very meaningless, like why even bother working? I have (had) savings to go take several years of sabbatical if I wanted.
When I actually boot up a video game today I actually enjoy it. And that is all on top of normal stuff you hear about having kids.
Ever built something and felt proud of it? Like 'that was cool' or 'that was neat'. It's like a never ending source of that feeling. Most things you do in life just don't last that long, but raising kids lasts a really long time.
Because it's evolutionarily favourable - the same reason sex feels good. One is instantaneous pleasure, and the other is sustained doses of feelings of satisfaction, because they optimise for different things; but ultimately you can understand them easily if you think about how core they are to what evolution favours.
and yet most nobel prize laureates seem to be family people. I found that adult responsibilities have a way of making me very very intentional about how i spend my time.
YC reject so I bootstrapped and was thankfully able to hit profitability before my first kid showed up. I’ve now got two. I also have dreams bigger than ever.
In fact, writing this while sitting on the couch with the kids watching Muppet Treasure Island while my kids are wearing pirate hats and waving foam swords.
I’m still extremely productive and prolific. Probably less compared with before. But before, I had friends and TV shows subtracting from my time.
Today, my life priorities are kids, work and sleep.
There is no Netflix. There are no hobbies. No downtime. No friends unless I happen to like my kids friends parents.
I’m up at 5:30/6 and get 90 mins of focused work in. Skip breakfast. Then workout and walk/bike with the kids. Then ready for work at 10 - and thankfully my office is two blocks away. Skip lunch. Home at 5/5:30. Dinner with kids and play. Work from 8-10. Every single day.
I love my kids, work and learning is fun, and I value sleep. Everything else is a nice to have.
The way I see it, when I’m 100 years old I won’t regret drag on my ambitions because I had kids. In fact I’ll probably think the ambitions were nice but kind of pointless in the end anyway. I will see the kids as important and meaningful, and will write a life story where I was the best dad I could be and still hustled like hell.
Yeah I had a schedule like that when the kids were very young but it caught up with me, frankly. Having the computer be the first and last thing I interacted with every day was not great for my mood either.
Granted, I do need to take a break from that schedule every so often. If I catch myself being unfocused I just go to bed.
Also, the first thing I work on is usually a high leverage project that excites me. Reading news or answering emails (things that can affect my emotions) are usually avoided during that time. Usually.
Intermittent fasting and calorie reduction are the only known way to EXTEND lifespan and wellness. 10 years of low carb + fasting is the single most important health decision I have ever made.
You are more correct, but I think the truth lies somewhere between your statement and theirs. We have correlative evidence that lower calorie diets and/or fasting results in longer lifespans, improved insulin sensitivity, pancreatic cell responsiveness, blood pressure, oxidative-stress measures, and more, in humans. We also have animal testing showing causative evidence that fasting produces longer lifespans. Of course, animals are not humans, and correlation does not imply causation. Still, we do not currently have causative evidence that smoking causes lung cancer, and we widely agree that that is harmful for lungs. With enough correlative evidence I think it becomes reasonable to accept it as actionable evidence.
Wellllll, kind of... I've realized hunger is often just another habit because we're used to eating N meals a day, like the GP comment implies. I've done a quasi OMAD (1-meal a day) thing on-and-off for 3+ years now and don't feel hungry the rest of the time, given my current physical activity levels. It took a few days to get used to, but now I can start and stop OMAD on demand.
I'd recommend everyone try fasting and figure out what their bodies really need (preferably over the holidays, because the adjustment period can be a bit rough and could interfere with work.) I suspect most of the developed world is over-eating by quite a lot given our largely sedentary lifestyles.
As a fun project, you should look up the history of eating schedules. They vary wildly between different cultures. Some have a single large meal at the start of the day, others have 5 smaller meals spread through, and everything in between. There is no standard even if it feels like it simply because that is how we are raised.
Most "good for your health" advice is pop culture driven with a half life of 5 years anyway and breakfast being the most important meal of the day is a marketing slogan. In other words, no better than any various convention.
About the only things that stick are "don't stop physical and mental activity as you age" and "do stuff in moderation".
If you call it "intermittent fasting" and write a book about it, you can get a whole movement behind how healthy skipping breakfast and lunch is. And another movement preaching about how bad it is. And a followup book about what you REALLY should do ad nauseam.
Pretty much, so much of what we take for granted in culture was actually intentionally designed from the top down to have masses of people fall into line and become good servants of the economic system.
As for good diets, for instance, there is a wild meal schedule that has shown to be fairly good at managing weight, it is just intense. It is the 16 to 17 meals a day plan. One meal every hour you are awake, each one only about 100 to 150 calories. It does potentially work but try selling it to people and worse getting folks to stick to it.
Agreed. This view also makes sense if we look at pre-agriculture humans - they’d eat heartily when there’s a good catch, maybe eat some leftovers the next day, go without food for some time, etc. Evolution by natural selection doesn’t move fast enough for humans to have adapted strongly to a fixed 3 meals a day schedule by now; eating times are still very much a convention.
The secret is to have your children eat for you, then just do blood transfusions when they’re at peak nutrient level. You can do that while you work for optimal efficiency.
Man good motivating schedule. Are you married as well? I notice this is missing the wife time. I feel like I really have to wreck my sleep to get worktime between wife and kids.
"Behind every great man there's a great woman." I thought I was killing it at work and as a dad when I was answering emails about complex bugs while hiking with my first kid riding in a backpack. But then I quit working to be a full-time dad for kid #2 and found out how much work my partner had been doing that I didn't know about. I suddenly understood why so many of the men at my former workplace had been divorced. So be ambitious, but check in with your partner and make sure they are on the same page.
The author seems self-aware and I think there's a lot of good observations in this post.
At the same time, I think ambition needs to be paired with humility and acceptance of you can't have it all.
There's no perfect life. You can't optimize everything such that you achieve a hypothesized balance between all the things that are competing for your time and energy. In the final analysis, most people, if given the chance to reflect before they die, would choose more time with the people they care about than more time working, even if, in the moment, they felt they were doing a good job balancing the two.
I think this is the point though right? The author is saying that he rejects this dichotomy and he's attempting to take on both even if others might perceive it as impossible.
Which is good if sailing is what you wanted and like to do, which is what the author and the OP is implying. You don't necessarily have to "succeed" or "reach" somewhere.
What I wrote isn't about "success". It's about direction.
What the author is at risk of doing, in my opinion, is pretending to a certain extent that he can have his cake and eat it too. As I wrote in my original comment, "you can't have it all."
Please don't take this to mean that you have to choose between your family and career (or a business). That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that, at a certain point of "ambition", there is no perfect balance possible between all the the things you're trying to maximize.
The wise person accepts that sometimes you have to make choices, and choices always require that you give something up to get something else.
Kids are also not always a joy. I love my kids, and there were certainly moments of joy, mostly when they were young. As they grow up, they turn out to be their own people. They may ignore your advice and learn life lessons the hard way. They may not live up to the hopes you had for them. Be prepared for some disappointment. Doesn't mean that you don't love them, but they can be frustrating.
To be fair, I'm sure I disappointed my parents in some ways or times also.
Work is also not always a joy. Success is not always a joy.
But there's more than enough evidence to show that, when people look back on their lives, most of them most highly value their relationships and have the most regrets around how they managed those relationships.
Having a child doesn't guarantee happiness. Raising a child is not always going to be rainbows and I suppose learning to accept that the life you create doesn't mean you get to dictate what that life becomes is a form a wisdom. But none of this takes anything away from the experience if you accept it for what it really is.
I have a good friend who has a special needs kid and we've discussed his struggles at length - suffice it to say that it takes an order of magnitude more time and attention than what's described here.
The thing is, you of course don't get tipped off that you've been selected for that particular curse (and yes, I'd say it's a curse. It's not some inspiring after-school special thing, it's unfair as f*k to all involved).
The point of this is, I suppose, it's okay to choose not to have kids if you don't feel like gambling, because it turns out, you are. And I say this as someone who is very in favor of having kids and who worries about the looming population collapse in all developed countries.
For that particular issue you can improve your "gambling" odds by having kids at a younger age, rather than waiting until you've optimized your career and environment.
It's not like people had an established career when they had kids at 19 in the 1940s. They just didn't view "being halfway to a comfortable retirement" as the prerequisite to having kids, the way my generation thinks it is.
I think the best advice to having kids young is to lower your expectations. The only reason people ‘cannot’ have children young is because they want a specific kind of life for themselves and their kids that is incompatible with that.
The difference likely there is in the ‘40s you were seeing improvement after the Great Depression and employment during WWII, followed by the postwar boom. Whereas the past two generations have seen precarity increase while living standards falter if not drop compared to their parents’ generation. So they are striving to recreate what they once experienced in their childhood, yet may never return.
Also the entirety of society including their families emphasizing the importance of higher education, good careers, etc. even as the latter is harder to achieve and the former becomes increasingly devalued, yet pricy.
My parents were both teachers, who, before moving into admin rolls (when I was somewhat older) worked in special ed.
My mother later ended up back in a classroom for a period of time with severely handicapped children. Bound to beds and wheelchairs, non verbal, never going to have independence.
For years after she left her admin job she would go back and spend an evening or two every year watching the kids, so the parents could have some sense of "normalcy".
Her lament was what would the outcome be for these children. Because every one thinks they are doing the best for them by keeping them at home, and close. But the reality is (in so many cases) that the plans for "family to take care of them" almost never works out. Years later my neighbor was an older woman, with an adult special needs child. She died, suddenly, from breast cancer. The brother, who was to take care of him, shipped him off to a group home (because he had kids of his own and lacked the time to care for him properly). That poor mans trauma was doubled when his living situation and life and loss of mother all happened in such a short period.
My own family, I have a severely handicapped cousin (who, became that after a high fever). He too is wheelchair bound and non verbal. However his mother, heeded my mother's advice and transitioned him into a group home early. It worked out well for him as he had a more fulfilling life, and the family (sister, aunts) weren't under pressure for his care, rather just rounding out his life. He still gets out a few times a week with them, and is always around for the holidays.
It's a tough thing for parents to understand that what's best for your special needs kid is sometimes going to be harder on them than all the hard work they doing. And I remain grateful that is isn't a choice I ever had to make myself.
It's very frustrating that behind every "you should be eternally grateful for every child no matter what" warm fuzzy message is an implicit "and if you ever express regret for having a kid who wound up non-verbal and violent and destroyed your marriage and your relationship with your other kids you're a horrible person".
Not referring to your cousin specifically but my mom's life's work is with severely autistic children (the "can't talk and hits people" sort, not "I'm a bit awkward and love math and doing anything to help autistic kids is abject cruelty!" sort), and the experience for parents mostly seems to be abject misery.
> And I say this as someone who is very in favor of having kids and who worries about the looming population collapse in all developed countries.
Complete aside, I hope that this happens via the demographic collapse and not due to resource/environmental blow back. It would be the smoothest path down. In the same way that inflation is a smoother way to grow a pool of poverty.
"Be ambitious enough to be an ambitious dad." - agreed! Being an ambitious dad IS exhausting. And the successful people telling you that you can't be a present, ambitious dad and be successful -- that you have to trade successful fatherhood for professional success -- are weak. They are not heroes.
The real heroes are the ones ambitiously raising the next generation while changing the world right now. That's what I aspire to be... and those are my role models. Not the ones who abandon their kids or wife to pursue their own dreams and make excessive amounts of money.
If you really can only muster enough time or energy to be ambitious about one thing, be ambitious within your home/family.
I would also add that, at least in my experience, those who are professionally ambitious and maximizing professional success, while being highly confident they are also succeeding at home, often have an inaccurate view of their home life. It's not until the kids are grown and openly fighting their demons that they realize the bargain that they made.
It's that old adage of, anyone who thinks they're a great parent, probably isn't. And almost all kids would be happier with a less wealthy (or even poorer) upbringing, and a tighter family.
The number of wives who have complained to me privately about the lack of family commitment of rock star husbands whom everyone admires (often precisely for their apparent family commitment) was a real eye-opener.
I'm not convinced that stratospheric success in business is very often compatible with high levels of parental and spousal involvement. It is sometimes, but those are anomalies we shouldn't build our fairy tales around. I know very few old-timers who wish they'd spent less time with their families when they could have made the difference of a lifetime.
There’s a pretty interesting self-help book that is designed to help couples share domestic and family work equally; I thought it was an interesting read. It makes exactly the same point about rockstar husbands that contribute less than their spouses.
The central idea is a set of 100 cards representing various tasks that are necessary for running a household, that you split up between the two partners. Supposedly women tend to hold ~80 of the cards in most relationships.
The online discourse around this book can be kinda vitriolic (lots of examples of it starting arguments) but I do think that it’s a good starting point if you want to genuinely try to contribute equally.
> The online discourse around this book can be kinda vitriolic (lots of examples of it starting arguments)
Yeah, no wonder given that it starts with an unrealistic view that the average man is a lazy slob that sits around playing video games while his wife has to handle everything with children and the household. You keep waiting for her to mention that anything else might be possible throughout the book, but that never happens. I think gay couples were mentioned maybe once.
Yeah... I do have some issues with the book. I think that the cards tend to be weighted towards things that women care more about, which naturally means that women end up being responsible for more of them. And different cards require different amounts of time to handle.
The way that I’ve tried to handle this is to focus on equalizing “total time per week spent on managing cards”, which requires time-tracking but is more fair, and also negotiating a modified set of cards.
The book kinda suggests both of those but I think that in practice most people don’t implement them.
And, as you said, the tone of the book can be off-putting at times. I still feel like it’s the best available resource for this problem.
I haven't read into them much, (so maybe I shouldn't be repeating it here;) but there are studies about how even when women are the higher earners in relationships, they end up taking on a greater share of household management and maintenance work. (The rhetorical context is usually around why young women aren't as interested in dating.... But again, that's something I'm throwing out there w/o due diligence)
But the idea of having physical cards that you split up and assign does sound really helpful. I might look into that. I would say in my experience breaking out household chores even amongst roommates, some tasks that seem even aren't remotely so once you get into it (I have been the advantaged and disadvantaged party in different apartments) and some are simply different such that some are trivial for one person and not so for another person. But that's a part of dealing the cards, even when splitting evenly. (now I'm wondering if I can see where people are getting into arguments.... ^_^')
This is a conversation that ambitious women have been having for decades. To the point where it's a cliche. Having it about men and women is valuable, having it be about them separately I think masks some of the structural problems- e.g. better childcare, more and better laid out parental leave(1), etc.
Two things I've heard from different ambitious women: "To really achieve, you need a wife" is something I've heard a lot- that it takes one parent sacrificing some of their career priority; traditionally that was the woman but it in theory could be the man (2), it just rarely is.
The other thing an ambitious woman told me once is that her mom told her "husband, career, kids, pick two." Basically, there is just only enough energy for a given person per day to invest in two of them. I've seen some women who managed, from the outside, to at least look successful at all three, but it's rare indeed.
1: When my kid was born the software company I worked for (I'm an American at an American company, but this was an area of competition for software devs at the time) offered a 14 week paid parental leave, even for men. Most men took a four week ("secondary caregiver" leave) and overlapped it with their wives 12 week unpaid FMLA. I took mine (14 week "primary caregiver") after my wife's leave expired, such that our kid had one of us caring for him every moment of his first six months. I remain convinced that was absolutely vital as the basis for both my relationship with my son and with my wife- she had to rely on me, trust me to care for the kid, and I couldn't hand him off, it was all on me every day. And so we both developed the parental muscles, could trust that the other one understood the reality of the situation, in a way that many father's don't get a chance. And that experience convinced me that the US needs maternal leave, obviously, but it also needs paternity leave- and the policies need to be designed such that the woman has to be back at work for at least some of the paternity leave, it can't all be used concurrently.
2: In a recent survey of American households https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/04/13/in-a-gr... about 55% of American heterosexual marriages the man makes 60% or more of the household income, about 30% both halves of the couple were between 40-60%, and just 16% saw the woman make more than 60% of the household income. In the majority of the 16% the woman still spent more time on unpaid household chores and carework than the man they were out-earning. Only in the 6% of heterosexual marriages where the woman earned 100% of the income did the number of hours per week in unpaid labor of men even equal that of their female partner.
I think the point that my friend's mom was making to her was that for a woman (with significantly higher social expectations for the amount of care work and housework) you can only be good at two of the three, because you are a human being with a finite amount of time and energy.
As for how you end up with just those two, I think the answer is divorce: you don't spend the energy to maintain your relationship with your spouse. Before you had kids you could invest your time and energy in your spouse and your career, then the kids come along and your relationship with your spouse weakens, either all the way to divorce or to just a degraded state.
Yeah I can accept that point of view. I think this is highlighting a certain relationship expectation delta between men (or at least myself) and women (or some women). If my wife is doing well in her career and we are doing well with the kids, I could easily see this being considered ‘good’, but my wife may view the relationship as being neglected. I see the core functions working and consider the relationship doing well.
This situation is in development for me so we will see. 0 and 3 year old
Yeah, this is also what I see as the main threat to my relationship with my wife: my complacency, taking it and her for granted. We both work hard on our parenting our 9 year old, and our careers, but then you need to spend the time with each other, lest you become roommates who run an unpaid childcare service on the side.
And I do wonder if this is about the engineer mindset ('I've reduced this to a previously solved problem, I just let the subroutine handle it') or about the way that men are socialized in my culture (just take her out to dinner twice a year- Mother's Day and Valentine's- and remember her birthday and you're meeting social expectations) or what. But it's the biggest threat to my (and I'd hazard a guess most other) marriages.
> and the policies need to be designed such that the woman has to be back at work for at least some of the paternity leave, it can't all be used concurrently.
Not sure how to apply a legal framework, but in my area this is often enforced by the lack of daycare options for <2yos (the threshold might be lower, but about that much).
Very rare to see parents around me take their parental leave at the same time bc they'd be risking still being on a waitlist when they're done.
A good example is the crushing stories of Frank Zappa's kids. Here is the guy touring the world making millions of dollars, releasing albums non-stop. His kids, barely saw him. For instance, his daughter Moonunit said the most time ever spent with him was recording lines for the song Valley Girl, beyond that he was fairly absent.
I have heard similar stories from many you wouldn't know, they say the same thing about their partner or parents. The desire to have it all ends up trading one thing over the other.
I don't know what the right answer is but I do kind of feel this desire for equal effort might be misguided. My sister wanted to spend her time raising kids. Her husband less so. That is decision they made together. It's no different than any other difference. He like working on cars. She likes knitting. She doesn't require him to spend equal time on knitting and he doesn't require her to spend equal time on cars. Why are children any different?
Further, many cultures, past in particular, seem to be very different in terms of parent involvement. To take an example from fiction, Harry Potter goes to Hogwarts at 11 years old. Yes, that's fiction but it's based on current and past cultures. It's still a thing in the UK for "elite" kids as young as 7 or 8 to go to boarding school, away from their parents. Kids in places too far for a public school are often sent to other cities, to boarding schools. East Asia & India also have famous boarding schools.
The point being, this idea that parents must be with their kids many hours a day until they kids move out of the house at 18 or 21 is not a fact of life, it's a cultural choice. I am from that culture and wish to spend as much time as possible with my kids. But I can also see it's a cultural choice, not some universal way things must be or else bad stuff happens.
> The real heroes are the ones ambitiously raising the next generation while changing the world right now.
so pedagogy and psychology researchers? giving that having biological children is the worst ecological offense someone can do in an ever increasing worldwide population? [0] how about adopting and getting into voluntary programs or even do pro-social things with your money?
giving birth on the current societal status-quo not only screws with the future of our own specie but also a bunch of others which may go extinct because of our greed
Things are considered important in the context of humanity. Environmental concerns only exist because of its impacts on humanity. The planet does not care.
Calling having children an ecological offence is like saying that best way to reduce emissions is for all people to die.
you can perfectly justify whatever you want based on whatever else... will take myself for example: i just slave workers on my IT firm because there are sweatshops elsewhere /j
like there isn't a correlation on more resources being used or explored in a bigger population?
I've started peering behind the curtains when I get the chance, and I've not yet found someone wildly successful who is also a model parent. Time after time, their spouse is quietly shouldering an enormous load, or their children spin their wheels and wind up rudderless, etc.
You can certainly be successful and be a good parent, but one of the first steps is recognizing and picking out the false prophets. You can't hold yourself to a superhuman standard, which is what a parent maximizing career while letting family malinger will present. They will say, Look at me, a captain of industry with vaults of gold, who has the physique of a twenty-five year old and is also an all-star parent. And you have to figure out that it's a lie.
One little clue - start to notice: of your professional idols who are good parents and seem to have it all, how many have a spouse working a demanding full time job as well? I realized for me it was zero.
Unfortunately, I think that this is possible, but it requires a superhuman well of energy, sleep deficit tolerance, and benevolence that very very few people possess. :/
Seriously, aside from the folks with the “2hrs of sleep is enough” gene, it’s not. It’s an actively harmful myth that is sold hard. Start gathering your own evidence, with a critical fact-finding eye. Don’t just accept the narrative. It’s one of those legitimizing stories that serves the teller.
Try watching The Dawn Wall or Free Solo, keep notes, and fill in the blanks on how long they were gone from family. It’s a canned example of how it gets glossed over.
The same attitude as towards gear in weightlifting is appropriate. They tell you it’s natty all day long, but you know delts don’t get that round without gear.
Just wanted to say thank you for this. In particular, the part where often it seems the "Founder mode" icons some evangelize (seem to) neglect their children and/or effectively put childrearing entirely on their partner.
I wish I had a good term (or some other concise way) to reject/criticize this aspect of tech culture.
I say founders above but I see it happen in lots of my peers who are simply workaholics. The closest saying I have (which I repeat often) is:
"The only people who will remember you worked late are your kids."
> "The only people who will remember you worked late are your kids."
I really need to kick my engrossing tech hobbies. :(
And yes to the wider point. There are many people more capable people than me, but sometimes it's about priorities, and top achievers in fields will usually be sacrificing something else.
So this piece really resonates with me. I have a five month old child who I really like/love - but I am filled with a passionate software idea and everytime I get a tiny bit of time to work on it, it is heaven. A while back I was able to do one hour in the morning before work on it - but have lost that hur recently. At night, I occassionally look wistfully at my computer sometimes and wish I could build - but I am just trying to be patient and I am hopefully I will soon get back 'one hour' a day in my evenings. One day...
My partner and I are considering paying for a weekend nanny to look after the boy when he turns one on Sunday- so again we have free time to work on our passion projects. Its great to be a dad but it is so time consuming with young children.
Having extreme career success (like the kind referred to in the article) is basically a lottery ticket. I spend a lot of time with my kids, because I figure even if I halve my chances of winning the lottery, well, the odds haven’t changed that much, all considered.
Exactly this! When I had my first two kids only a year apart and early in my career, I thought I'm giving something up because I could no longer invest as much time and effort into my projects and research ideas as before. But in retrospect, looking at how the field has evolved since etc., those ideas, which I had regretted I couldn't push harder, anyway had only a small chance for some grand success (beyond the low-medium success of the low-medium effort versions I managed to put together).
I'm shocked by the amount of time people who don't have kids waste.
So while PG may believe that people may have their "act already together" pre-kids, I sort of look at the amount of time people without kids waste and think "if only I had that much free time..."
Yes. Before I became a dad, I didn't realize how physically and financially constrained people are with regards to number of kids that they have. For me and my wife, our first child took all our time, resources and energy.
This was a shock to me because my parents had 4 children and never seemed to struggle. Also, they were much better off than me financially and could afford to hire help.
My biggest achievement as a dad is the fact that my son speaks 3 languages. In spite of the fact that I was working full time, he still learned to speak my native language fluently from me. And I still did house chores too. And still worked on side hustles at night and weekends.
But yes, I had no life at all for 5 years straight. No life at all. I'm a shell of my former self. My main concern is that I'm showing my son a bad example of how a dad should be. I literally can't afford to raise him with the same values as I was raised with... Because he would grow up into someone like me and that would be my greatest fear.
Now I understand why some parents spoil their children and focus 100% on boosting the child's confidence. This is what you have to do if you're poor. Because you need your child to believe they are above you. That way when they see how shit your life is, they don't have to believe theirs will also end up like this.
At every point in my life after age 25 or so, I could look back 10 years and be appalled at how much time I wasted back then. 50-year-old me is angry at 40-year-old me for wasting my 40s, as 25-year-old me was angry at 15-year-old me for wasting my high school time. What a waste my youth always seems!
For me to feel like it is wasted is to put on a definition of the time period that wasn't there. It is internal personal fan fiction at that point.
I don't feel like I missed out on anything.
There is also the added point of whatever position you take, it is always a trade off with something else.
To be awfully reductionist. The fat people envy the skinny because their health is in check, the skinny envy the fat because they have a sense of care free freedom.
Not sure this is fully accurate. Managing kids can use up one's will power or self control resources considerably. There can also be sleep deprivation with young children and other energy drain. I'm not really sure but my focus / ability to avoid distractions at work may actually have gotten worse since having kids.
> I'm shocked by the amount of time people who don't have kids waste.
I'm shocked by the sanctimonious tone of those with kids; it's likely professional bias from having someone that needs schooling at home.
Then, I will always be amazed by how those with offspring feel the need to constantly validate and justify themselves for their choice, while those without barely touch the argument.
I felt very conflicted about this topic when I was young and working for Apple. I decided the Valley commute and rat race wasn’t very family conducive so I took a remote job and moved a few states over and it’s been great.
I’ve been fully remote for 12+ years now, and I’ve had a very successful career in engineering and engineering leadership. I also have eight kids that I get to spend a ton of time with. There’s a remote tax on career growth, but my RE side hustles have more than compensated for it.
Every now and then I wonder what might have been if I had stayed at Apple. No way to know for sure, but I probably couldn’t have afforded the family and lifestyle that I enjoy now.
There’s “how to be a good parent” advice and there’s also “oh boy how do we manage mealtimes and laundry and the school run” type advice. Someone with lots of kids is going to have great insights into the latter at very least.
Maybe ambitious is not the right word. It's more like, at some point you have to go home.
Before my kids, I started at sunrise, and coming home was optional. Then I got married and divided my attention. Then I got twins, so I divided it even more. But it doesn't make me any less ambitious, in fact, I have more fire behind me to ensure I give them a bright future. It's just that, I come home on time now.
Edit: and thank you for writing this post. It's rarely something we mention in our personal blogs, but it's always nice to know how diverse this culture is.
Exactly. If he means successful instead, then we can have different definitions of successful. That being said, I don't think most startup founders have the same definition of successful as that meets: dad that wants to be there for their children.
'Ambitious' often means doing optional things that take time.
A single person who cuts back on time spent doom scrolling / tv watching / beer drinking to teach themselves enterprise Kubernetes sysadmin best practices is ambitious.
A new parent who cuts back on time with their kids to teach themselves enterprise Kubernetes sysadmin best practices needs their head checked.
I’m far less ambitious, but not less driven. It’s just that what I’m driving for is to maximize time doing things I and my family enjoy. In fact it’s a lens through which I analyze jobs and career opportunities.
Like OP with my first kid, I constantly had itchy fingers -- too many ideas to ever execute on. Tired and no more flow state. Work seemed like a waste of time with politics. My hobbies were my outlet - and now it was reduced to maybe 1 hrs a day.
Then AI got good.
I've always been able to solve problems fast in my head, but was bottlenecked by fingers and dumb infra.
AI gave me my time back honestly. Nix solved infra. backlog CLI kept the work clear. Good engineering, in spurts.
Now I have more execution power than ever, and I can steer my minions. Yes, I don't get to code and there is little flow state, but I always better liked to solve a problem and go to the next than actually typing it out.
From my phone, wireguard and aVNC to my homelab, I conduct ralph loops on my architecture and principles. This is so powerful, that my brain poops out even more ideas - and so I find myself fully immersed - another kind of flow state.
Consequence: Brain fry and less sleep, so sometimes I just crash out and sleep for 10 hrs. Usually get 5-6 hrs nowadays.
First definition of ambition in merriam webster is "an ardent desire for rank, fame, or power." Ambition is basically definitionally antisocial.
A desire to accumulate power is tantamount to a desire to accumulate wealth. Most ways to wealth these days involve finding ways to consume more of the world's resources or siphon resources to yourself.
Consider refining word choice. (Though if your notion of ambition corresponds to building a sillycon valley startup, then 'ambition' is probably the right word.) I don't mean that nothing good ever comes of technology; I mean that VC-funded startup tech is mostly done in the pursuit of money, damn any social consequences.
This resonates a lot with how I felt while building our company. My kids were born during the early days of our startup and it was pretty much what he described- work and being a dad. Thankfully the startup was pretty successful and I made a good amount of money that’s allowed me the luxury of not having to work when the older one was 10. I am really enjoying not working and being a full time dad :-)
I once bumped into a couple of very high profile VCs sitting outside a coffee shop. Somehow the conversation got round to the fact that we were potty training our 12-month-old. One of the VCs told me their two kids, 2 and 3 years old, weren't yet out of nappies, just used pull-ups, because there hadn't been time to potty train them. There are reasons why this could have been legit (failed attempts, developmentally challenged children, etc.) but it was delivered as a kind of admonishment that I was involved in potty-training at all (even though their fund hadn't invested in my business or even been pitched).
It really depressed me at the time, realising there was a class of entrepreneurs and backers who were genuinely stop-at-nothing, even if it meant their three-year-old at day care was wondering why he was the only nappy-wearer, and carrying that subliminally into later life.
What I learnt from that and host of other experiences over time was that a young family and running a venture-backed, high-growth trajectory business aren't very compatible, but...
What I've also learned is that your first venture's going to be imperfectly executed anyway, so get the learnings out of the way anyway, with kids in the picture, then go again when the kids are school-age, and hope they get to enjoy the fruits of venture number two as teenagers.
Also, I never saw consistency from the people who put venture before family. They'd be buying shots for young staff at 11.00 at night on a week night, checking their crypto-balance continously, micro-managing, taking unnecessary business trips, etc. There are some absolute time-management machines out there, who never seem to waste a moment of their working days (I know two, and they both combined successful startups and young families), but in reality everyone needs some downtime/respite and family time is a better restorative than anything else except pure rest.
On that point, there's the famous adage, 'Startup, sleep, parenthood. Pick any two.' I picked startup and parenthood. Sleep deprivation means I look 10 years older than I am, but no regrets.
Finally, I think kids give you a second wave of competitive determination after your initial ambition wanes. Problematic investors, cheating competitors, over-demanding enterprise customers, careless execs, etc. could leave a lone individual feeling sorry for themselves, and defeatist. It's amazing how creative and determined one becomes when it feels like these different personas are causing setbacks that, rathervthan just interfering with your personal ambitions, might be stealing your kids' future opportunities and financial security.
If you have kids and you prioritize your career to the point you never see your kids, and you will have huge and legitimate regrets later in life. Especially if you don't achieve Jobs / Musk level of financial success. That's pretty common knowledge.
But the opposite is also true. As parents, we're always examples for our kids, for better or worse. Do we want our kids to see us abandon our dreams 'because of them' or do we want them to see their parents showing them how to go after their dreams, because that's what life is about ?
The middle way, perhaps? What "dreams" are more important than having a strong connection with your kids? Not only are the regrets that will come later in life huge and legitimate, they would also be irreversible. But, assuming you're in relatively good health midlife, you can always attempt to build the 5 startups that will almost definitely fail. Just my opinion of course.
Ah, I may have misunderstood your comment. I thought you were leaning more towards the "dream" part. But so my comment also meant to say that the definition of ambition and success changed after becoming a parent. I know I won't be curing cancer in my lifetime and so what thing is really important that I have to sacrifice time with my children for? To me, being the founder of the next failed facebook for cats is just not it.
Note that I am not talking about earning a living and thus necessarily sacrificing time doing that and showing your kids that sometimes you have to work hard to survive in a decent way. I am talking about the parents who outsource their children to childcare to work to pay off the loan on their third car and newest iphone and tell you that they have no choice.
thank you for this, very well written, and rings true.
I will say for me this is the root contradiction:
> I do not believe the quality time theory. I firmly believe in maximizing the quantity of time spent with them; there are no diminishing returns for them on that front.
If you believe that to be the most true statement, then it leads to the conclusion that you should work as little as possible to spend as most time with them, up to and including not working at all. The ambition to be kidmaxxing, if you will. This is incompatible with career ambition obviously.
I guess i'm just sharing the same frustration but with a stronger conclusion - it seems fundamentally contradictory to be ambitious in both, at least at young ages. Seems like we're fooling ourselves if we think you can, we're compromising on one aspect at least.
Ultimately any two ambitions will compete with each other for finite time and energy. (Assuming each ambition benefits from more time and energy being spent on it, which is usually the case.)
You can be reasonably successful in multiple areas, but you can't max them all, you have to compromise somehow.
I read the post as the author acknowledging the compromise, expressing frustration about it, and determining to live on the pareto frontier with his strategy of focus and discipline and so on. Sacrificing other things in order to achieve both ambitions at a high level (though not maximizing either one).
"Maximising time within reason" is probably a better construction. As usual if you follow these arguments to their absolute meaning they become ridiculous
But what’s “within reason”? Right now I have an unlimited list of ambitions of things to do with my kids. Traveling, sports, skiing, mountain biking, surfing, camping, building, electronics, etc etc… there are not enough hours in a year to do just those with zero paid work. Is that ridiculous, assuming I can afford to do so?
"Define nuance" I dunno, it depends on all of the factors that go into your life. There might be a lower level construction of the logical argument but it eludes me and begins to feel arbitrary
I had a conversation about this topic yesterday with a colleague of mine. We both found some kind of career-family balance, and are continually honing it. However, we both lamented the loss of hobbies.
* Sometimes I'm in flow state, and so breaking at 17:00 breaks that.
* 17:00 is rush hour, so if so leave then, my commute goes from 60m to 90m. So I leave at 16:00, and catch up later. But now I'm context switching more.
* If it's 14:30 and I know I'm leaving at 16:00, then I'm hesitant to work on something that might need more focus/debugging.
All these are workable, and many parents are testament to that, but at least for me, it's all contributing to less productivity.
Being a parent teaches you how to stop procrastinating and use every second you have available. You are at your most productive era (work items per minute spent).
The bad news is that the day still has 24 hours, and that means that your career needs to adapt.
For example I had to turn down an opportunity that would require me to be putting 70 hours per week and I stayed at a job that I could do 9-5. That opportunity went sideways (the startup failed) so overall my career is fine.
I don't know if progress made it more hard to spend time with kids, on average.
In older generations, men spent relatively little time with little kids. I don't know if it was social convention or lack of time. Either way, it seems that now a lot more dads are spending time with kids than 2 generations earlier.
I agree that it is hard, but I would not paint a bleak picture.
A lot of good stuff in this thread. The party I'll add and haven't seen yet is that I think being a dad has made me a better people manager at work. I think about humans more than ever and that has helped make me more efficient at work
Being a dad is fulfilling enough that I don’t want to do anything else but hang out with my kids. Perhaps that’s what Paul Graham meant when he said kids make you less ambitious? And I know the day will come when they won’t like to hang out with me, so I’ll have the time to go back to building things.
Love the article. One question; how do you unwind? I think it's achievable to spend enough time on both your career and your children, but consequently personal time will suffer.
One of the biggest challenges I have as an ambitious engineer and a father of two, is that I do actually have plenty of time to be a high achiever in both facets of my life, but only if I'm working in isolation.
My kids are active in about 12-13 hour period between 6.30am and 7.30pm. The rest of the time they're asleep. On school days, window of time in which I can actually be present with them narrows right down to two blocks: 6.30-8.30, and 3.30-7.30. That's only 6 hours in a business day in which I can be active and present with them, leaving me with 18 hours to get everything else done.
There's obviously more to being a dad than just being actively engaged with your children when they're at home and awake. There's all this supplemental work that needs to happen to support them as well. But it's not _that_ much.
The problem is that this I spend with my children actively overlaps the time in which my peers and co-workers are working. Not being available to my teams for synchronous communication slows down their execution, and not having my team available to me while I'm working slows down my own execution. When my team or I need answers or collaboration to unblock us, communicating asynchronously means we can potentially be blocking for half a day or more on a task.
At that point you can either just wait and be unproductive, or start/continue a different task, maintaining multiple active work streams. The latter is problematic for a number of reasons, such as the increased cognitive load of regular context switching, an inability to work on dependent tasks, etc.
So ultimately for me, I don't think the issue is that there's not enough time to do both, it's just that both work and family generally need you at the same time.
A somewhat unpopular opinion, but personally I don't mind being kind of absent in my kids' lives relative to others' expectations. I think there's been some expectation creep around parental involvement for high-achieving couples without much concrete evidence that it hurts long-term outcomes, assuming the child is otherwise healthy and well taken care of. There's also something to be said for leaning on grandparents and other support structures more heavily than a lot of people currently do.
One "superpower" from being married with kids is that your life becomes a lot more predictable. Like, having sex regularly and spending quality family time is probably a healthy part of a balanced, productive lifestyle, and is a good counterbalance to the stresses of a demanding career - it's nice not to always be thinking about how you're going to get laid, or in the event that you do become successful, whether or not your partner is just gold digging you or something. Although a lot of that depends on who you marry and making sure you're both doing good maintenance.
I think the difference between your opinion and others is that for many being a dad is the intention and not an expectation. They want the experience of being an active and present parent. If it were purely about obligation, in this day and age they probably just wouldn't have children.
> without much concrete evidence that it hurts long-term outcomes, assuming the child is otherwise healthy and well taken care of.
Not to pick on others’ life choices, but I don’t think that this particular assertion is true. Depends on your evidentiary bar, I suppose, but just from googling it:
* Mass General’s Fatherhood Project (https://thefatherhoodproject.org/schools/the-research/): “Findings from the rapidly growing science of early childhood and brain development show that a father’s active participation and emotional engagement with his children leads to improved social, emotional, behavioral, and academic outcomes.”
For what it's worth, I had a "high-achieving" dad. The big house, going on vacation and all that jazz was nice, sure. My grandparents and the support system were cool too. I consider the grandma who raised us while he worked like my second mother. I definitely would have preferred to get to spend a lot more time with him before he got old. Cause he is now, that wheel ain't turning back, and I barely got to know him. He was present as much as he could with the career he chose.
We turned out okay, no major problems with any of us, decent careers, whatever. I guess we probably wouldn't have turned out much better. So yeah, I guess there wouldnt have been much in terms of better "outcome". Still, my siblings have voiced the same regret. I genuinely think he does too. The expectation of being more present than he was is one I give myself, not "expectation creep".
Just because you don't see the many small moments when your children need you doesn't mean they don't exist; trust me bro, they do. Your partner or support network is probably doing too much to cover for your absence, to you and your kids' detriment. Unless you're a horrible bastard, they'd probably rather have you around more.
I grew up having a "kind of absent" father who focused on his high-paying career more than spending time with his kids. He no doubt rationalized it to no end, but the net result was that he wasn't there when I needed him the most. Growing up I often wished we were poorer so he could be around more.
I agree in the strongest terms with the article's rejection of "quality time" as a substitute for quantity, and the rejection of delegating away one's parenting.
I agree so strongly that I walked away from a promising postgraduate degree and millions of dollars of future compensation in my relatively secure MAANG position to be a full-time father to my young children.
I know not everyone can do this and don't know what the future will hold, but at least we'll be together.
Uh, I think at the very least you have to caveat on the age of the kids. Babies need a lot of fussy obsessiveness. Kids arms aren’t long enough for them to wipe their own ass until they’re about 4. Don’t know when you get them to start doing laundry or dishes but that takes longer still.
Watching my kid grow up I realise that despite the modern world having/wanting so many kids we really don't build affordances for them.
Most kids 5-8 at the family dinner table are trying to eat from a plate at shoulder height. No wonder they don't care about cutlery use. It's pretty hard to put downwards force on a knife that is at shoulder height, let alone coordinate all the minor muscle movements required.
The bathroom sink in most houses, similar height, and they struggle to reach taps and soap.
Little stools abound around the home!
But then you go out and public toilets have hand driers right next to their head. No surprise they complain it is too damn loud!
In a world where we supposedly want kids, if for no other reason than to keep society going, we sure don't make it easy for them.
It shouldn't be hard though. For me personally, I'm mostly friends with other dads with kids and I do my hobbies (music, rock climbing, skiing) with my kids. It's not that difficult.
This. Involve your kids in your hobbies. If they aren't interested, that's okay too -- you can be involved in theirs. Some hobbies have a finite life anyway. You aren't going to be a gymnast forever, for example, and that's okay.
Is a bit harsh to me. You might be ultra competitive but it could also be how you define it. But in my opinion sometimes “time wasting activities” are needed for recharging your own batteries and this kind of phrasing sounds like burnout.
Like if I said fishing someone would justify it as not being time wasting etc or meditating or something you would justify as health work but that justification is even contradictory to meditation at all.
time wasting is an odd phrase and stressful wording to me I don’t like. “wasting time” can sometimes be a productive and useful endeavor.
Conflating low quality downtime (like scrolling on your phone) to fishing is not fair. I've probably been happiest during periods of almost zero downtime (but still separate days off)
You’re missing my point that is that any activity that does not have a means to an end or reaching some goal or objective does not make it a negative… unless you’re ultra competitive and every single activity (even spending time with your kids) has to be seen as a means to an end.
This is pretty accurately defined as spiritual materialism
This feels really weird. I feel like I’m far more productive than ever now, even with half the time spent and zero crunch. When I was younger I was flailing around doing tons of pointless shit. I could make up for that with more effort, but it doesn’t change that I can achieve the same result with far less effort now. So the output with children is more or less the same as before.
There’s also the simple fact that it’s much better for your productivity to play a round of tag than it is to attend another stupid meeting.
Bryan Cantrill (inventor of DTrace and cofounder of Oxide Computer) comes to mind as someone who seems to do both. It’s hard to know somebody’s parenting quality from the outside, but he talks about his kids a lot.
In his case, I think he didn’t start his company until his kids were older. I’m not sure what the early childhood years were like for him.
In college, I burned out on normal coursework and dropped out to teach myself how to code instead. To support myself, I worked in restaurants. I found that working as a dishwasher was quite complementary to learning to code. It was tiring physically, but I ended each day in need of mental stimulation, so went home and coded all night.
Now, as a father, I've found there's a similar complementarity in some ways but not others. There's a huge physical component to parenting, and this is perfectly complementary. There's also an emotional aspect (sometimes 2 or even 3 cry at once). This can be complementary or not depending on how much emotional labor work required (usually very little).
The one area where both work and kids is exhausting is attention. A toddler demands a huge amount of attention, and performing at work does too.
Well said. I hope some day to make it and start parent.capital a place where parents can get funding. I believe there are thousands of people out there with great ideas and immense talent who are unable to leave their salary and benefits behind to pursue them.
When you become a parent, your risk profile changes immensely. I can hire some of the world’s best people tomorrow if i can promise them equal salary, benefits and retirement accounts for a set number of years. Plus the benefit of a large upside if it works. Most startups offer lower salaries and abysmal benefits. Security matters.
I still don’t get it. It sounds like the business plan is to fund companies so they can offer compelling employment. That’s great but that’s no different than any other VC.
Then again don't forget being ambitious enough to be an ambitious founder, ambitious dad and an ambitious husband/wife/partner. And then being healthy enough to have energy to do all three. I keep thinking if I divide 24 hrs by 4, that would be the optimal time allocation to all 4 endeavors, but that's naive.
The weird thing is how most of the comments here are from dads saying it's hard but worth it in various ways. I've been scrolling for a while and failed to find an alternative point of view.
This essay feels like the 2010s when feminists were debating if it were possible as a women to "have it all": successful/satisfying career, family, and personal life.
If parenting and building are both truly aspirations, why not have people you admire that are great parents as well? I guess they don’t have many biographies for great moms and dads.
I admire the ambition. I wonder how many people out there are chasing both of these things, thinking they are being great parents and great builders, but are failing at one, or both.
I don’t know about you, but sometimes ambition is just to put food on the table. That’s all it’s ever got me and the rest is the dream to escape a life of work work work.
I wonder if the solution is simply to focus and effectively use resources so you can be effective and ambitious in a reasonable number of hours. Which is fine for 99.99%. Only if you are at the helm of discovering a revolution in physics or changing the world in some other way then go all in when you have kids. Which today is rare since team work makes the dream work way more. Of course there is greed. If you are greedy that is a different thing.
I think the hardest part is how to define “waste”. Are you “wasting” your time if you go to a school event for your kids during the weekday? Is it a waste of time walking your kids to the bus? Is it a waste of time reading to my kids before they sleep? I argue it’s extremely hard to draw that line and a personal question for sure but being “efficient” is hard.
Having kids is easily and by a huge distance the very best thing you can “build”. It’s the best project you’ll ever make.
If you can find a way to run a cool thing on the side then great. I’ve been lucky, or something, and I have. And I love it.
But my kids are a trillion times more important. And now they’re 21 and 19 I can live knowing that I’ve launched the best couple of projects in the world.
The IPO in my parental project arrived and stocks are doing well :-)
It is not just the time. Having kids (dependents) consciously or subconsciously lowers your risk threshold. Makes you less flexible in a lot of aspects. All these little things will lead to tempering your ambitions or take on additional stress to keep it up..
The modern (mostly western?) obsession with "parenting" as a job/hobby is truly despicable. Probably as despicable as the standard education factory farming most of these parents are subjecting their children to. It is a miracle that despite all this parenting and education, some children manage to grow into fully formed individuals.
I love my parents. They are not perfect, but as much as they could afford, they never stood in my way. I love my children and I will strive to provide for them the resources, space, and freedom to grow and become who they are as individuals with infinite potential. I will never treat them as extensions of myself.
I'm writing this for the log, so I can remember my ideals. I'm sure everyone here has disagreements, opinions and wisdom that they wish to impart, but I frankly don't care. A culture that condones keeping dysgenic inbred mutilated wolves in one's house to satisfy the pleasure of "caring" for an animal weaker than oneself has no lessons to teach me about raising children. Whatever lessons I could distill from it for myself, I have already done so.
You touch on the right point when you say “completely removing time-wasting activities.” Looking at a handful of biographies and trying to extract universal lessons from them is somewhat misguided/infantile.
“You can’t have it all” frequently comes unbidden into my brain when thinking about this sort of thing.
I don’t know, my goals are more and more about cool stuff I can do with my kids, and far less about business stuff? I’m not less ambitious but my ambitions have changed?
I too have to disagree with pg on that line `> having kids may make one less ambitious`. The fact is that the world is very very multi-modal, i.e. the brains of people and how they think are wildly different. I think having kids makes me more ambitious and more focused, and more selective re the problems I work on, partly because I am also setting an example.
He's having kids only to satisfy his eugenist, white supremacist kink. He doesn't care about them and even hate them if they stray out of his worldview - just ask Vivian.
I'm coming out of the period where my kids need less help and it's really great working on projects alongside my kids making stuff. I try to model working on my projects as something that is enjoyable to me and that I am working over a long time period.
I would only add that if increasing general family cohesion is one of your goals, I think having lots of kids accomplishes that. Having a large family and multiple automatic life long best friends brings me so much joy.
> setting clear rules on time with kids (weekday dinners, weekends prioritize family) and
Are these examples or an exhaustive list? Eating dinner during the week is.. not a lot. So I assume it's about setting time limits for these activities?
Many years before becoming a Dad, I recall watching a video recorded by the Penny Arcade web cartoon folks while working where they reflected on both becoming fathers and asked themselves if it had been a net drain on their productivity and creativity.
They both concluded (not quickly, they discussed it) no, because it forced both of them to level up their time management game, quit whining and learn to get on with it, to the point where they generally got more done a couple of years in.
I have found this to be true. Our little one is turning 3 in November, and while the first two years were a bit slower (I took half a year of work while my wife finished up her Master's, etc.), in 2026 I've so far had a fantastic year and find myself much more capable of juggling more balls at the same time, finally learned the skill of grabbing sleep where I can, etc. I'm pretty sure I already "had my act together" (as per the article) and was doing well career-wise, but raising the stakes on the family side has definitely only improved things.
Got a whole lot of Open Source work done, reverse engineered an old cult video game I used to play, wrote HMI and firmware for a robot used in the Great Pyramid of Egypt for a scientific mission, taught myself GPRs and built a new radar control system, spent a week rolling around in the dust of millenia inside Khufu's Pyramid, etc., all next to the day job.
The most unexpected professional/skills growth and fun year I've had in a while, and it's all so much more meaningful when I get to share it with the little one.
I agree with this. Especially as you gain experience and your work becomes less day to day grunt work and more high level strategic thinking, having constraints on time actually has been beneficial for me.
Taking work problems into other spheres of my life, especially parenting, gives me distance and a new lens to view them through.
I feel like my dreams have died with becoming a parent and having a family. 2 hours of free time isn't enough focus time to do anything significant or learn anything. I thought abound going back to school recently and there's no practical way to pull it off. Once they're in school I'll be in my 40s anyway. I doubt I'm pivoting my life into anything fun at that point. It's been tough to deal with mentally.
I am in nearly the exact same boat as the OP. I'll observe a few things after having 2 kids and running a startup at the same time for a few years...
* Your amount of "lost" time with kids is often less than you think. On one side, you very likely socialized more, traveled more, were less disciplined about what you worked on, etc. On another side, some things that you are going to do anyway (dishes, maybe calling your parents, groceries), you can often do with kids, and so this time isn't really "lost"
* If you are fortunate enough to have some means, you might consider not outsourcing parenting, but outsourcing "life admin" work. Specifically things like laundry, dishes, buying groceries, picking up around the house, etc. I recently got someone to come to our house 3x / week for 3 hours and it's a game changer for me and my wife (who also works). (I know my point above says you can do some of this with kids, and that's kind of true, but not always, and it still lets you do other things with your time)
* Assuming you have a partner, and the premise here is you still want to be a very active parent, then I recommend being very deliberate about almost never parenting together. As in, one of you take all the kids, and the other can do what they want for 1-4 hours at a time.
Lastly, while I'm a pretty active dad myself, I reject the premise put forth here that your job is to maximize the time spent with your kids, as if this is the main metric by which parenting success should be judged. Just no. Actively no. Kids having time alone and with their own friends outside of the eye or ear of their parents is a really important part of growing up. Kids having time with various caregivers who are not their parents (be that grandparents, aunts, uncles, friend's parents, camp counselors, babysitters) is also good and healthy.
The struggle is real though. There's no easy answer. Hope these thoughts help!
I grew up in a huge family with a dad who wasn't particularly successful but spent all his time working anyway, with little attention to either the household or to building relationships with his kids.
I think this was mostly a matter of temperament; he liked to work and he didn't really care much about the operation he was funding, which is unfortunately why he has no contact with most of his adult children today.
All that to say, I didn't mind that he worked a lot, but it was pretty damaging that he almost never spoke to me other than for urgent logistical or disciplinary reasons. Just, you know, don't do that.
family life is not about "compounding gains" -- in part because family life is not about "gain" at all. On the contrary - you sacrifice and are ultimately consumed! The language of investing is entirely out of place in this context.
> Steve Jobs literally abandoned his daughter Lisa because “the time wasn’t right” (he was focused on Apple).
Steve Jobs is also a criminal. See the court cases where he underpaid developers and conspired with other companies to avoid hiring people away. That is criminal.
See https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jan/23/steve-job... and many similar reports. It is time to stop idolizing this guy. The "time was not right" is not surprising by someone who steals money from developers, which Steve did here. Apple owes people money.
I'm a father. Best thing I ever did, but it is work, it is hard.
In ways, it really crisped up my time working on work. My wife and I have some bottom lines, we're invovled, we have dinner as a family every day. We go to school events, all of them. We go to sports and activities, all of them (although there have been some times we had to split up and each to a different one.) I'm at the table when my kids have breakfast, every day except when I travel for work which is a week or two per quarter. It's great for the kids, it's great for the family but suddenly it feelds like your day is shorter. Personally, I have tried to find other "thought time" and that has resulted in much better execution when I get to writing code or plans or whatever. I used to sit at the blank editor and start to compose but now I am forced to think more before hand. I've built a few things I honestly don't think I could have built before kids, just out of necessity, I've had to be more efficient and effective.
There are also times of utter exhaustion but I had those before kids. I'll also went through the process of sort of cutting out extras to make time, once your kids are in that 10-11 age, they'll have friends and interests, I've added some of those extras back because they are busy on Sunday afternoons or whenever.
Weekday dinners? Pff.. I'm 100x better parent, and probably 100x less productive. But my employer is happy with me, I'm happy too, and my wife and kids too. So happy, I do not need to write articles about it.
Money can solve most of these problems? Send your kid to daycare, hire a nanny or two and then the world will believe you can be a great father and ambitious and successful in your career. They do not see the village taking care of your kid while you are busy with work
My career plateaued as soon as I had kids. I don't regret it, but companies definitely don't promote people with kids as rapidly, almost as if they know they have extra bargaining power over them because they have dependents to worry about.
If you have something to live for, you're less valuable to the company. That's more about corporate politics than some fundamental underlying truth about your productivity potential as a parent
I have had to very deliberately and repeatedly let myself off the hook for ambitions while parenting. There is SO MUCH that I am hungry to do, and none of it is as important as being fully present with my kids.
Will there come a time when these are more complimentary than in conflict? Maybe! But while the kids are young, not often. And while I feel the conflict, it’s helpful to have somewhat pre-decided what I’d regret more, and it would be not having connected with them.
If there’s time later to do great things, especially with them, so much the better.
I had roughly the same realization about the pillars of math & science years ago. Many terrible, terrible parents whose children suffered mightily. While I had aspired to intellectual impact all my life, I had an unexpected realization. I could not bear the thought of being famous and intellectually successful yet having totally failed my children. It reversed my longstanding priorities, and I realized I wanted to be a parent more than I had thought.
I still believe that having passionate and driven parents is good for kids.
This is something that makes me really sad, because as an extremely ambitious man, I've found it difficult to make friends with men who are similarly ambitious. It seems that everyone gives up once they have a kid and becomes a helicopter parent. I like to think I'm a good dad (have four kids; work from home; regularly do sports, music, etc with them; cook regularly) and also pretty ambitious (work in a MAANA company, have side businesses and gigs, have a good marriage, hobbies, exercise, etc), but it's difficult to find other dads into this. Or at least that's my perception here in Portland, OR. I've met a few, but most ambitious people seem uninterested in kids, and the ones interested in kids seem thoroughly unambitious in my opinion.
What really stands out reading this piece is how different this attitude is than what we as a society thought 50 years ago. The great men name-dropped in the article surely had more on their plates than the average 1960s middle manager at G.E., or corporate attorney, or advertising agency VP, or shift manager at a Ford plant, and thus were surely more absent parents than their contemporaries. But in that era, fathers didn't even lose any sleep over it. It was just accepted that their primary role was to bring home as much money as possible to pay for a better life for their family, and if you're lucky to leave a legacy as a builder of great things or organizations. It was the mother's job to raise the children (or in the wealthiest families, perhaps that fell to the nanny(s) while the mother focused on socializing or hobbies).
In two generations, we've gone from that to most dads constantly asking themselves "Am I a good enough dad? How could I be better?" Fathers feel that they aren't good enough if they merely provide for a good life for their family and set a good example. They try to find a way to, while of course not dropping the ball at all on the provider role, also be a 'fun dad' and a friend to their kids and be deeply involved in their lives.
I would say this is also kind of a mirror image to women's very real struggle post-1980 or so -- before, you were absolutely acknowledged to be a success if you cared well for the next generation of children and taught them to be good people. Some would say (and still do) that's one of the most important callings. Now women worry that they're not good enough unless they - without missing a beat on that first mission - also have an impactful and meaningful commercial career.
This isn't arguing to force people to perform only one sex-prescribed role or anything. And I don't want any parents to just be absent, because frankly being there for your kid is incredibly rewarding. I'm just saying, I think it's an insane amount of pressure we put on mothers AND fathers to be everything to everyone both within the family and in the professional world.
Reality check: this guy worked on "Mocha is an online AI powered app builder. It allows everyone to build web apps, no coding required"
He 'loves' building. Building what? Crypto thing when crypto is hot and AI thing when AI is hot? Is there a word to describe this behaviour that we may be familiar with?
I believed this idea of kids = dead dreams for a long time. I don't think it's true. I think the author of the blog is letting his particular interests and cherry-picked examples cloud his judgment.
If you look beyond the narrow sphere of technology and founders, you'll find many of humanity's greats had kids, or more broadly, family responsibilities, at some point. Their ability and involvement as parents varies widely, but this idea that kids are some kind of an inevitable death-knell for "being successful" or renowned whatever that means, isn't true.
An alternative lens would suggest that having kids reveals a lot about life that you can use in your other pursuits.
Your kids also eventually become adults, at which point the demands likely lower significantly.
Just like the "starving artist" myth, it's mostly baloney hyperbole that people promulgate because there's some obvious basic truth to it, but it isn't a law of the universe by any means.
We have one life and so much we want to do. This was me, now I have kids. Wake up, read news reply to email. Get kids ready for school. From drop off at school straight to work, from work straight to pickup the kids.
My working hours are 6-9 most days. Wish I had more hours in the day.
I don't know if I'm ambitious. I've worked my way to a high-paying tech job I enjoy. I'm not looking to found a startup or job-hop my way to a fancy title, and plan to stay here until I retire if I can. On the other hand, I put a lot of effort into my work, not because I'm angling for a promotion but because I like what I do and I want to do the best I can for the users.
Does that count as ambition? Doesn't really matter. The basic tension described here is strong, in any case, between work and family.
> Some figures in technology (Paul Graham, DHH, Jeff Dean, even Mark Zuckerberg) seem to be pushing on both fronts with rare success
Possibly true, but who knows. Especially Zuck, who does not lead a remotely ordinary life (imo).
Dad of 2 girls. 8 and 4. Maybe this should be titled “being ambitious because you’re a dad”
I am better than ever post kids. Always great, no. Always amazing, no. Not sure I agree with the post otherwise, especially quality vs quantity. High quality interactions are the best.
Focus on your kids, your health, and your work? It seems like a very tall order.
You've studied many notable builders, but have you studied the great dads? How much time does one have to spend to be a great dad? Do they get to pick the times when they can spend their focus on being dad, or do they have to be present at times they'd rather be doing other things? I think being a great dad might involve a lot of taking your children to sports practice, music lessons, play dates, libraries, and tons of other activities until you discover what clicks with them, and then there's many years of supporting those interests. I don't think you can just put it on pause during the week. To be a great and present dad, I think you can only count on being able to spend maybe 55 to 60 hours a week on work (with a lot of that being after bedtime and/or starting very early).
Looking at the great builders, I think the common element is that they picked the right thing to work on at the right time, in the right place, executed better than their peers, and also had a ton of luck.
* Zuckerberg was in the right place at the right time with ample luck and he chose to drop out of Harvard to spend a few years doing the hardcore startup house thing working exclusively on building Facebook, and nine years later he had his first kid. Right place, right time, strong execution, and much luck.
* Bill Gates was in the right place (a high school where he got extensive access to a mainframe computer, then in a local company that gave him and his friends unlimited computing time in exchange for them finding and fixing bugs) at the right time (when mainframe computers were an extremely rare and expensive thing and before operating systems existed) and he dropped out of Harvard to go all in on building Microsoft, then 21 years later he had his first kid. Right place, right time, right skills, great execution, and much luck.
* Paul Graham was in the right place (a Harvard CS Ph.D. who studied design at RISD living in NYC) at the right time (during the Internet 1.0 boom and before both the bust and before anyone else had brought a site building cloud application SAAS offering to the market), and he brought a great idea to market in time to sell it to Yahoo in 1998 for $49M of stock and he correctly elected to cash out his stock before the bubble burst in March 2000. And then he leveraged his great technical and business faculties to identify and develop great business ideas via YCombinator (2005-present). Then he had his first kid in 2009). Right place, right time, right skills, great execution of a novel great idea, and much luck.
* John Carmack is probably the platonic ideal of focusing and getting things done. His work ethic and habits are legendary (8 hours of sleep a night, 10 hours of focused work a day, and 60 hours of work a week) as is his output (Doom, Commander Keen, Wolfenstein 3D, Quake). In 1978 he discovered video games and in 1982 (at age 12), his family bought an Apple II computer and he quickly learned BASIC to start making games before digging deeper to learn assembly code. He gained deep and extensive knowledge of how computers work, motivated by his drive to make games, and this enabled him to make the limited PC hardware of the time do things comparable to purpose-built arcade machines. He came up at the right time, had sufficient interest, drive, and vision that motivated him to deeply explore and master computing as well as design and develop many iconic games of the 1990s. Then in 2004 he had his first kid, at which point he started working less, although still a 50+ hour per week workload. Luckily his children are interested in programming, which makes it easier for him to get quality time in. Still, right time, great skills, great ideas, much luck.
* etc.
Having a child already, you might be a bit constrained. But if you can manage getting into the right place to seize upon a great and novel idea that you are uniquely positioned to execute on, you might be able to build the idea out while the market and need is unserved.
Another potential strategy is to work on an established business model that someone else came up with, and spend your evenings and weekends with your children. The best dad I knew growing up did this (he was/is a database administrator and was the dad of three of my friends I knew through my boy scout troop who have all grown up to do incredible things and also be deeply happy people) and is still one of the coolest, most interesting and well-rounded people I've ever met.
In 100 years nobody will know who you were. In 200 years, only a few hundred people will be remembered from today. So what is the goal of your ambition? Is it the self-satisfaction? Temporary bragging rights that will be soon forgotten? Whatever wealth you accumulate, you can't take it with you. The pharoahs already trie this. It doesn't work.
Nobody's going to give a shit that you founded an AI company and sold it to Meta for $600 million. Sure you can enjoy the material benefits while you're here. Maybe you can even pass some of that onto your children.
The Good Place was one of the best TV shows of the best shows of the last decade (IMHO) and it brought up a relatively recent (1998) book "What we owe to each other". It makes the point that it's not a question (ie "what do we owe to each other?"). You're only meaningful impact is on the people you affect around you, positively or negatively.
Personally, I have no opinion on whether people should or shouldn't have children. That's none of my business other than this: you have to make a choice between having and raising those children and chasing material "ambitions". Bringing people into the world without their consent and then neglecting them makes you an objectively terrible person. Pick a lane.
And if you do choose ambition instead, at least ask yourself why. Studies have been done on this. Money does buy happiness but only to a very limited point. Beyond that it's isolating. So why are you doing whatever it is you're ambitious about, really?
The passionate hunger to do something significant and meaningful with my life was a major reason I took care never to have any children. Having grown up in a large family within a religious subculture full of other large families, the amount of time and attention children consume was crystal clear from a young age, and I knew that I was going to need every scrap of energy I could spare for the work I wanted to do.
Years later, after I had to accept the failure of my ambitions, there was an opportunity to become the dad of a kid who needed one. So here I am being a dad after all, and it's been a good experience. Difficult, of course, and often frustrating, but worthwhile; I have no regrets - neither about this choice, nor the one I made when I was young.
Thanks for sharing! I remember thinking pre-kids mostly about how much work they would be but not really considering the joy they bring too. Like I knew they would, but vastly underestimated what effect that would have on my life.
I don't particularly regret any of my choices either, but knowing what I do now, would have chosen to have kids earlier in my life.
I find it funny that I spent my 20s and 30s doing everything in my power to avoid having kids and at this stage in my life I’m doing everything to have kids.
I do feel that 30 year old me would definitely be in better shape to chase kids around.
This. I’m an old dad. I realized two years ago that to keep up with my pre-teens I had to change my lifestyle. For me that meant cutting out alcohol, not eating processed foods, avoiding sugar, reduced caffeine, way more protein and doing calisthenics. I sleep well and I have energy. I just have to keep this up for 10 more years when my youngest will be 21, then I can die. ;-)
Haha! Very interesting life goal - When your dependents have sucked all the life out of you, you can kick the bucket:) (And am sure it’s worth it)
Rather sounds like they’ve given them their life back.
Exactly, good for them
Am not sure what your statement means? :) who is "them" and who is "their" in this?
> When your dependents have sucked all the life out of you, you can kick the bucket:)
Don't laugh, there's a reason for it. Read the book "The Red Queen" which explains all this.
Same here in almost all ways, except the caffeine. What was the benefit there? My hot pots keep me going. Once my wife hits menopause I might also consider TRT. I'm almost certainly not low by the standards of the average American, let alone for my age, but it's gonna keep falling as I age and wouldn't mind that extra oomph.
There’s never a right time to have kids. But having them older has its perks. You are much more calmed, patient, you are wiser and likely financially stable. Throwing money at problems definitely makes life 10X easier when you have kids, something most people can’t do in their 20s or even 30s.
I disagree. As a father of nine children, I submit that the best time to have children is when you’re young. The next best time is now.
Sure, you’ll be poor, and you’ll make lots of mistakes. But how do you know you’ll be able to have children later? And what’s so important now that makes it worth putting off children?
You’ll feel poor anyhow. More money just means you want more.
I’ll say there’s benefits to having a single child, but not nearly as many as there are to have multiple.
Explain this please.
I mean: siblings.
Not to discount that it’s great when you play with your kids, but it’s different when your kids play together, and in particular when you can’t play that they have someone to interact with.
Yeah, the group dynamics of, say, a family with two children:
As compared to a three-child household:
So, in a bigger family, many more communication patterns between children can arise, which, among other things, might develop the child's empathy etc.
Adding mom and dad as "players" would give us many more possible scenarios here (Kid A playing with mom, Kid B alone or with dad, etc).
I'm a father of two with a low income, and I would like to have a third child for precisely the above described reason. As a sociologist in my country put it -- somewhat harsh words maybe, but probably largely true: a single child might get spoiled, two children may start competing too heavily, but three children and above is company.
Not only do they play but they also learn to care for each other. Parental effort doesn't increase uniformly with each child – if you're lucky and have done a good job parenting them, children create a society and help with raising each other.
As a father of nine you have to acknowledge your perspective is an extreme outlier. Not criticizing, just, not a generalizable take.
I was 41 when my daughter was born. I think it’s a great reason to stay for, strong and healthy.
My goal is to keep up with her mountain biking, snowboarding and hiking for as long as I can. Hopefully I’ll be on the game well in my 60s and her 20s
My dad was 42 when I was born, and he was keeping up with me on hikes in my early 20s (his mid 60s). I haven't done much hiking with him lately, but he's going on 50 mile bike rides at 70.
I think having kids late can help people stay young longer, if you let it.
> I do feel that 30 year old me would definitely be in better shape to chase kids around.
Can confirm that starting at 30 makes it relatively easy to keep up. Still not early enough though. Wish I’d started at 25.
It’s mostly a matter of effort though. You’ll become very good at it out of sheer need if you genuinely want to keep up. In far better shape now than I was at 30, mentally and physically.
100% on this. In my life I have 0 regrets except not having kids younger. I was never especially fond of kids, but it turns I out love my own more than I imagined possible, and have more fun with them I ever thought I would! I only wish we could have many more but given when we started, the odds of having more than 2 are very low. The amount of joy and life they bring to you and to your house is something you can't really appreciate until you've had them. To say nothing of the sort of fulfillment and life satisfaction they bring.
My parent's goal was to get me to go to college. My goal for my kids is to teach them the importance of having kids early. The fact it might help in having a grandkid or two before I kick the bucket is just a wee bit of icing on that cake. I think the ideal time to start is probably in your 20s. This also maximizes the amount of time you'll get to spend with your kids. I'm quite 'jealous' (sans the negative connotations) of those who will get to see their kids live til retirement, but hey - they made wiser decisions, so hopefully I can help encourage my children to do the same.
> I was never especially fond of kids, but it turns I out love my own more than I imagined possible, and have more fun with them I ever thought I would!
That's because we're designed to have kids.
I for a change am happy I had my kids in late 30s / 40. I am certainly wiser, way more experienced with world, humans, got to be successful and in much better financial position which also helped my parents to have better retirement.
I wasn't a full adult in my 20s, too naive, too trusting, undefined for the lack of better words, not experienced with various types of women (laugh all you want, this was probably the most important experience from all for me, it afterwards formed my choice of wife which is often the most important choice in one's life).
Plus I've managed in a decade before having kids to travel the world backpacking, various experiences that changed me for the better and basically reinvented myself, on my own. I don't come from competitive or nurturing environment, nobody expected anything from me. I've found my passions in various mountain/extreme sports. None of that would happen if I had kids earlier, thats very clear when looking at peers who took the other trajectory.
If my kids will have their kids young or older is completely up to them, I find it selfish to push any expectations on them, they (will) live vastly different life compared to me, I can just respect their choices and love them regardless.
> Having grown up in a large family within a religious subculture full of other large families, the amount of time and attention children consume was crystal clear
Similar experience here growing up Mennonite (they’re sorta like the Amish but more moderate).
I’m one of the only remaining men in my family without kids, but those that do have kids (and there’s a lot of them) are super busy. This is at least partially offset by their wives who are more on the traditional side.
They all do seem very fulfilled however :)
very happy for you that things turned out this way
I got sort of lucky early in my career because I had a talent that was discovered in a national network. Which meant I found myself writing national strategies for IT in our public sector (Denmark) at my late 20ies. It felt great for a year, or maybe two. When it stopped being fun though, it sort of hit me hard. I did enjoy writing and working on the strategies with other people. All the "glamour" around it, advicing politicians, going to conferences, networking with all sorts of "important" people. That got to me on one of the many train rides I had to take. I know a 3 hour commute might not be a lot to Americans or people in larger countries in general, but here it's a life time. Eventually I didn't know why I was going on them, so I quit and went back to being a nerd in a basement. Having my first child was the kick I needed to push me to where I was already heading though. I would've likely ridden the career ladder for a lot longer if I hadn't become a dad.
I rarely speak about it but something about reading you accepting the failure of your ambitions made me want to do it. Are you sure it's a failure? For me family life turned out to be what I wanted and work is just a fun place which makes me money, but I totally get why people want to do it the opposite way. In some ways you could say that I did something significant, but it made me misserable. So I failed just as much as you, if not more.
I don't regret any of it either though. It's what made me who I am.
I'd also agree with this. Children don't make you give up your ambitions in the least. However they will almost certainly make you rethink what is important in life. It's not even conscious like an 'ok I give this up, in order to get that' but rather they just make you feel very differently, in a way that you can't really explain. But it's good, very good.
I think one of the reasons that a lot of successful founders are in their mid-40s is because they combine 20ish years of experience with an empty nest after kids are out on their own.
Nothing to back it up, but it makes sense to me.
Add in personal networks too.
Raising kids is fabulous experience for management. If you can convince a five-year-old that greens are tasty, you can motivate almost anyone.
Having been on the receiving end of someone trying to manage me like they do with their kids - No. A really strong NO to that behaviour.
That just tells us the person wasn’t a good parent either. Your comment assumes the only way to parent is to manipulate, patronize, etc. That’s just one perspective though.
There are other ways to parent that are actually fantastic management training - figuring out how to think from another human’s POV, acknowledge their frustrations, help them build the skills to handle their feelings, etc.
It turns out great parenting is to a first degree about great relationship skills.
> The passionate hunger to do something significant and meaningful with my life was a major reason I took care never to have any children.
Raising kids is probably the most meaningful and significant thing I have done with my life.
I feel like when young people think they want to do significant and meaningful things, they think about things that will make them famous in one way or another. Most of such things are neither significant nor meaningful.
This is very true :)
I used to think this way, and then I realised that I actually want to be famous and respected. After some time, I realised that I just wanted the approval of people. And finally I realised all I wanted was to feel loved and cared for.
That's unnecessarily pessimistic. I think it's much more common for drive people to want to make a significant positive impact on the world, rather than becoming famous.
Doesn't matter either way, though, once you realize you're just a blip like the other 8,000,000,000 people on this earth.
Agreed. I'm well travelled. Have had a very fun and satisfying dating life. A great career. Accomplished many life goals. Nothing comes close to fatherhood.
Which frustrates me immensely, because I feel that society at large did everything it could to convince me that parenthood is terrible. Movies and TV shows portrayed only the bad. Teachers told me that becoming a parent was the worst thing in the whole world. A wide range of celebrities spend their days posting about how amazing it is to be without children.
I accept that there are some parents out there who regret their decision, but research shows them to be a vanishingly small minority. The VAST majority of parents report greater meaning, more love, personal growth, enjoyment, fulfillment, etc. Something has become quite sick in modern society when we provide such an imbalanced and untrue message to young people.
Interesting perspective. Your first paragraph also describes my experience, perfectly.
However, even though I also think nothing comes even close to parenthood for me, my perspective is that society strongly encourages —I'd even say strongly pressures— people to have kids, to feel that if you don't, it's almost like something is wrong with you. Maybe we're just different generations? :-)
No modern western society does that, for quite some time. Maybe specific people around you behave so, but society as a whole? Nah
> Agreed. I'm well travelled. Have had a very fun and satisfying dating life. A great career. Accomplished many life goals. Nothing comes close to fatherhood.
I completely agree with you. But I can't say around me, people, movies, society ever sent the message that parenthood is terrible. The way I interpret the message was always "this was hard, this was grueling, but I wouldn't change it for the world". I didn't get this apparent contradiction until it was my turn.
I think the people who miss almost all of these "tickboxes" and can somehow link it to the kids become unhappy with parenthood. If they ever feel their personal time, romance, career, success suffered because of the focus on the children, they will end up in the "disappointment" camp.
I never personally met anyone who was willing to admit regret of having children but I did meet people who were disappointed and put a veiled blame for their failure on the children.
That's great insight. My sister missed some of these milestones and I hear echoes of what you describe in some of our conversations.
Why? Noy disputing you but I am childless yet primarily I cannot think why bringing up a kid would be significant or meaningful.
Like once I have a kid, then that kid has to be the most significant part of my life. But before that, why?
As a parent, I get to give you The Most Infuriating Answer: once you have kids, you'll understand.
Some do try to put it in words:
On Parenthood, https://blog.codinghorror.com/on-parenthood / https://archive.vn/zxDzb (Oct 2011).
Except... a million reasons where they will either not understand, or they should have not become a parent.
The problem with the "The Most Infuriating Answer" is that it entirely neglects facts, and only those say it who do have a good experience with it.
Happy for you, internet stranger. Just like I am happy for all of those around me: you all are the ones who do good parenting.
In case you also want to become a better person in general, I recommend to stop being condescending, and not to say this ever again to anyone. You hurt more than you think you are wise.
Agree with the sibling comment. As a new father, nothing - and I mean absolutely nothing - can describe the love, adoration and reverence that parents feel for their children. To be understood, it must be experienced. There is simply no other way.
+1. I also felt this huge gap between knowing (intellectually) what parenting is and actually experiencing it. It really changes you, to the point that now, when I talk to childless people my age, I feel like we're fundamentally differently. I think I can perceive fairly accurately whether someone my age is a parent after just a few minutes of general conversation (obviously, without having to visit adjacent topics).
I experienced this so strongly I spent some time actually writing a poem (in Spanish) about it: https://alejo.ch/39l
> It really changes you, to the point that now, when I talk to childless people my age, I feel like we're fundamentally differently.
As a childless person, the inverse is equally true. I have wildly different levels of obligation and constraint - and that difference typically becomes obvious very very quickly. I don't say that as a better/worse, just different.
Why is anything significant or meaningful? This will always be subjective.
Although there is an evolutionary reason why our brain would make our offspring significant to us.
>But before that, why
You can ask that question about a lot of things whether it's one entrepeneurial baby or their nature conservation effort which reveals it to be somewhat meaningless question.
Because any fault of theirs feels like a fault of yours, but you learn that you cannot fix faults of theirs like you can (try to) fix faults of yours. You learn to become a parent, a teacher, a guide, a kind of friend, in the most deeply connected relationship you’ll ever have. A relationship that exposes you to every fault of yourself, while you feel the deepest love for and connection with your children. A connection that’s not even always reciprocated. Parenting is the true Aristotelian politeia.
(I’m halfway through our main parental fase.)
It is kinda weird, because you feel so much more tired all the time. Yet at the same time you have so much more motivation to do _everything_. It is like I feel 50% more tired, yet 200% more engaged with everything I do. It really makes your life a lot more meaningful.
Before I would waste so much time engaging on video games / internet-browsing / TV-youtube / etc and just not enjoying the time I spent. It felt very meaningless, like why even bother working? I have (had) savings to go take several years of sabbatical if I wanted.
When I actually boot up a video game today I actually enjoy it. And that is all on top of normal stuff you hear about having kids.
Ever built something and felt proud of it? Like 'that was cool' or 'that was neat'. It's like a never ending source of that feeling. Most things you do in life just don't last that long, but raising kids lasts a really long time.
Because it's evolutionarily favourable - the same reason sex feels good. One is instantaneous pleasure, and the other is sustained doses of feelings of satisfaction, because they optimise for different things; but ultimately you can understand them easily if you think about how core they are to what evolution favours.
Exactly how I feel too. They bring magic into my life that I didn't even know I was missing. I'll be sad when they grow up and leave.
and yet most nobel prize laureates seem to be family people. I found that adult responsibilities have a way of making me very very intentional about how i spend my time.
I think being a proper dad (or mom of course) you realise that that is something extremely "significant and meaningful".
My ambition is to become a dad. I have other ambitions too whcih require a lot of time but if need be i'll make my choices.
YC reject so I bootstrapped and was thankfully able to hit profitability before my first kid showed up. I’ve now got two. I also have dreams bigger than ever.
In fact, writing this while sitting on the couch with the kids watching Muppet Treasure Island while my kids are wearing pirate hats and waving foam swords.
I’m still extremely productive and prolific. Probably less compared with before. But before, I had friends and TV shows subtracting from my time.
Today, my life priorities are kids, work and sleep.
There is no Netflix. There are no hobbies. No downtime. No friends unless I happen to like my kids friends parents.
I’m up at 5:30/6 and get 90 mins of focused work in. Skip breakfast. Then workout and walk/bike with the kids. Then ready for work at 10 - and thankfully my office is two blocks away. Skip lunch. Home at 5/5:30. Dinner with kids and play. Work from 8-10. Every single day.
I love my kids, work and learning is fun, and I value sleep. Everything else is a nice to have.
The way I see it, when I’m 100 years old I won’t regret drag on my ambitions because I had kids. In fact I’ll probably think the ambitions were nice but kind of pointless in the end anyway. I will see the kids as important and meaningful, and will write a life story where I was the best dad I could be and still hustled like hell.
Isn’t it unhealthy to skip both breakfast and lunch? How are you getting the energy to do stuff without eating?
Yeah I had a schedule like that when the kids were very young but it caught up with me, frankly. Having the computer be the first and last thing I interacted with every day was not great for my mood either.
Granted, I do need to take a break from that schedule every so often. If I catch myself being unfocused I just go to bed.
Also, the first thing I work on is usually a high leverage project that excites me. Reading news or answering emails (things that can affect my emotions) are usually avoided during that time. Usually.
> Isn’t it unhealthy to skip both breakfast and lunch?
No, why would you think that?
hey hey don't interrupt the hustleporn
Oh no you see this is now called intermittent fasting not "lunch is for wimps".
Intermittent fasting and calorie reduction are the only known way to EXTEND lifespan and wellness. 10 years of low carb + fasting is the single most important health decision I have ever made.
Kind of a strong statement there. Happy that fasting’s had such a positive influence on your life but:
No: fasting has not been proven to extend lifespan in humans.
Also no: exercise has been far more provably correlated with healthspan improvements than fasting.
You are more correct, but I think the truth lies somewhere between your statement and theirs. We have correlative evidence that lower calorie diets and/or fasting results in longer lifespans, improved insulin sensitivity, pancreatic cell responsiveness, blood pressure, oxidative-stress measures, and more, in humans. We also have animal testing showing causative evidence that fasting produces longer lifespans. Of course, animals are not humans, and correlation does not imply causation. Still, we do not currently have causative evidence that smoking causes lung cancer, and we widely agree that that is harmful for lungs. With enough correlative evidence I think it becomes reasonable to accept it as actionable evidence.
It's only unhealthy if you get hungry.
Wellllll, kind of... I've realized hunger is often just another habit because we're used to eating N meals a day, like the GP comment implies. I've done a quasi OMAD (1-meal a day) thing on-and-off for 3+ years now and don't feel hungry the rest of the time, given my current physical activity levels. It took a few days to get used to, but now I can start and stop OMAD on demand.
I'd recommend everyone try fasting and figure out what their bodies really need (preferably over the holidays, because the adjustment period can be a bit rough and could interfere with work.) I suspect most of the developed world is over-eating by quite a lot given our largely sedentary lifestyles.
As a fun project, you should look up the history of eating schedules. They vary wildly between different cultures. Some have a single large meal at the start of the day, others have 5 smaller meals spread through, and everything in between. There is no standard even if it feels like it simply because that is how we are raised.
It is but social convention.
Social and historical conventions don’t necessarily align with “good for your health”.
Most "good for your health" advice is pop culture driven with a half life of 5 years anyway and breakfast being the most important meal of the day is a marketing slogan. In other words, no better than any various convention.
About the only things that stick are "don't stop physical and mental activity as you age" and "do stuff in moderation".
If you call it "intermittent fasting" and write a book about it, you can get a whole movement behind how healthy skipping breakfast and lunch is. And another movement preaching about how bad it is. And a followup book about what you REALLY should do ad nauseam.
Pretty much, so much of what we take for granted in culture was actually intentionally designed from the top down to have masses of people fall into line and become good servants of the economic system.
As for good diets, for instance, there is a wild meal schedule that has shown to be fairly good at managing weight, it is just intense. It is the 16 to 17 meals a day plan. One meal every hour you are awake, each one only about 100 to 150 calories. It does potentially work but try selling it to people and worse getting folks to stick to it.
Agreed. This view also makes sense if we look at pre-agriculture humans - they’d eat heartily when there’s a good catch, maybe eat some leftovers the next day, go without food for some time, etc. Evolution by natural selection doesn’t move fast enough for humans to have adapted strongly to a fixed 3 meals a day schedule by now; eating times are still very much a convention.
The secret is to have your children eat for you, then just do blood transfusions when they’re at peak nutrient level. You can do that while you work for optimal efficiency.
No idea but worth remembering that modern breakfast was invented to sell cereal.
Man good motivating schedule. Are you married as well? I notice this is missing the wife time. I feel like I really have to wreck my sleep to get worktime between wife and kids.
yep all of this resonates
But time to post on HN?
He posts less than once a week so yes
When do you spend time with your spouse lol
So you're basically a machine that spends their time working and taking care of your children? This feels like a one-way ticket to a burnout.
"Behind every great man there's a great woman." I thought I was killing it at work and as a dad when I was answering emails about complex bugs while hiking with my first kid riding in a backpack. But then I quit working to be a full-time dad for kid #2 and found out how much work my partner had been doing that I didn't know about. I suddenly understood why so many of the men at my former workplace had been divorced. So be ambitious, but check in with your partner and make sure they are on the same page.
(original author)
this is true for me, wouldn't be remotely possible without my wife.
This quote certainly comes to mind:
Housework is not situated outside of economic production. It is simply non-salaried and paid through the husband’s salary.
The author seems self-aware and I think there's a lot of good observations in this post.
At the same time, I think ambition needs to be paired with humility and acceptance of you can't have it all.
There's no perfect life. You can't optimize everything such that you achieve a hypothesized balance between all the things that are competing for your time and energy. In the final analysis, most people, if given the chance to reflect before they die, would choose more time with the people they care about than more time working, even if, in the moment, they felt they were doing a good job balancing the two.
I think this is the point though right? The author is saying that he rejects this dichotomy and he's attempting to take on both even if others might perceive it as impossible.
Yes, he seems to be going in that direction, which I think is the fallacy. This is where I think humility should balance amibiton.
I don't think he is guaranteeing success, but stating his aim. Gotta have a goal to work towards if you claim to be ambitious.
You can have the best ship but if you're sailing in the wrong direction, you're still sailing in the wrong direction.
Which is good if sailing is what you wanted and like to do, which is what the author and the OP is implying. You don't necessarily have to "succeed" or "reach" somewhere.
What I wrote isn't about "success". It's about direction.
What the author is at risk of doing, in my opinion, is pretending to a certain extent that he can have his cake and eat it too. As I wrote in my original comment, "you can't have it all."
Please don't take this to mean that you have to choose between your family and career (or a business). That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that, at a certain point of "ambition", there is no perfect balance possible between all the the things you're trying to maximize.
The wise person accepts that sometimes you have to make choices, and choices always require that you give something up to get something else.
Kids are also not always a joy. I love my kids, and there were certainly moments of joy, mostly when they were young. As they grow up, they turn out to be their own people. They may ignore your advice and learn life lessons the hard way. They may not live up to the hopes you had for them. Be prepared for some disappointment. Doesn't mean that you don't love them, but they can be frustrating.
To be fair, I'm sure I disappointed my parents in some ways or times also.
Not sure what this has to do with the post?
Work is also not always a joy. Success is not always a joy.
But there's more than enough evidence to show that, when people look back on their lives, most of them most highly value their relationships and have the most regrets around how they managed those relationships.
Having a child doesn't guarantee happiness. Raising a child is not always going to be rainbows and I suppose learning to accept that the life you create doesn't mean you get to dictate what that life becomes is a form a wisdom. But none of this takes anything away from the experience if you accept it for what it really is.
I have a good friend who has a special needs kid and we've discussed his struggles at length - suffice it to say that it takes an order of magnitude more time and attention than what's described here.
The thing is, you of course don't get tipped off that you've been selected for that particular curse (and yes, I'd say it's a curse. It's not some inspiring after-school special thing, it's unfair as f*k to all involved).
The point of this is, I suppose, it's okay to choose not to have kids if you don't feel like gambling, because it turns out, you are. And I say this as someone who is very in favor of having kids and who worries about the looming population collapse in all developed countries.
For that particular issue you can improve your "gambling" odds by having kids at a younger age, rather than waiting until you've optimized your career and environment.
Easy to prescribe, hard to implement for the last two generations or so
It's not like people had an established career when they had kids at 19 in the 1940s. They just didn't view "being halfway to a comfortable retirement" as the prerequisite to having kids, the way my generation thinks it is.
I think the best advice to having kids young is to lower your expectations. The only reason people ‘cannot’ have children young is because they want a specific kind of life for themselves and their kids that is incompatible with that.
The difference likely there is in the ‘40s you were seeing improvement after the Great Depression and employment during WWII, followed by the postwar boom. Whereas the past two generations have seen precarity increase while living standards falter if not drop compared to their parents’ generation. So they are striving to recreate what they once experienced in their childhood, yet may never return.
Also the entirety of society including their families emphasizing the importance of higher education, good careers, etc. even as the latter is harder to achieve and the former becomes increasingly devalued, yet pricy.
Perhaps, but that often means selecting a partner more quickly, which is another gamble with potentially terrible consequences.
My parents were both teachers, who, before moving into admin rolls (when I was somewhat older) worked in special ed.
My mother later ended up back in a classroom for a period of time with severely handicapped children. Bound to beds and wheelchairs, non verbal, never going to have independence.
For years after she left her admin job she would go back and spend an evening or two every year watching the kids, so the parents could have some sense of "normalcy".
Her lament was what would the outcome be for these children. Because every one thinks they are doing the best for them by keeping them at home, and close. But the reality is (in so many cases) that the plans for "family to take care of them" almost never works out. Years later my neighbor was an older woman, with an adult special needs child. She died, suddenly, from breast cancer. The brother, who was to take care of him, shipped him off to a group home (because he had kids of his own and lacked the time to care for him properly). That poor mans trauma was doubled when his living situation and life and loss of mother all happened in such a short period.
My own family, I have a severely handicapped cousin (who, became that after a high fever). He too is wheelchair bound and non verbal. However his mother, heeded my mother's advice and transitioned him into a group home early. It worked out well for him as he had a more fulfilling life, and the family (sister, aunts) weren't under pressure for his care, rather just rounding out his life. He still gets out a few times a week with them, and is always around for the holidays.
It's a tough thing for parents to understand that what's best for your special needs kid is sometimes going to be harder on them than all the hard work they doing. And I remain grateful that is isn't a choice I ever had to make myself.
It's very frustrating that behind every "you should be eternally grateful for every child no matter what" warm fuzzy message is an implicit "and if you ever express regret for having a kid who wound up non-verbal and violent and destroyed your marriage and your relationship with your other kids you're a horrible person".
Not referring to your cousin specifically but my mom's life's work is with severely autistic children (the "can't talk and hits people" sort, not "I'm a bit awkward and love math and doing anything to help autistic kids is abject cruelty!" sort), and the experience for parents mostly seems to be abject misery.
> And I say this as someone who is very in favor of having kids and who worries about the looming population collapse in all developed countries.
Complete aside, I hope that this happens via the demographic collapse and not due to resource/environmental blow back. It would be the smoothest path down. In the same way that inflation is a smoother way to grow a pool of poverty.
The gamble is basically only a gamble if you wait longer. The graph for pre-35 parents is practically nonexistent.
I could live with the 2% chance at 42, but not with the 15% at 45.
Where the chance is of random abnormalities. Who knows what exciting variant you get.
15% at 45? You better have a source for that number.
"Be ambitious enough to be an ambitious dad." - agreed! Being an ambitious dad IS exhausting. And the successful people telling you that you can't be a present, ambitious dad and be successful -- that you have to trade successful fatherhood for professional success -- are weak. They are not heroes.
The real heroes are the ones ambitiously raising the next generation while changing the world right now. That's what I aspire to be... and those are my role models. Not the ones who abandon their kids or wife to pursue their own dreams and make excessive amounts of money.
If you really can only muster enough time or energy to be ambitious about one thing, be ambitious within your home/family.
I would also add that, at least in my experience, those who are professionally ambitious and maximizing professional success, while being highly confident they are also succeeding at home, often have an inaccurate view of their home life. It's not until the kids are grown and openly fighting their demons that they realize the bargain that they made.
It's that old adage of, anyone who thinks they're a great parent, probably isn't. And almost all kids would be happier with a less wealthy (or even poorer) upbringing, and a tighter family.
The number of wives who have complained to me privately about the lack of family commitment of rock star husbands whom everyone admires (often precisely for their apparent family commitment) was a real eye-opener.
I'm not convinced that stratospheric success in business is very often compatible with high levels of parental and spousal involvement. It is sometimes, but those are anomalies we shouldn't build our fairy tales around. I know very few old-timers who wish they'd spent less time with their families when they could have made the difference of a lifetime.
> we shouldn't build our fairy tales around
Being self-aware and self-critical is one of those changes that instantly improves everyone's life around us, including our own.
Yes, for most I would guess it's hard to get criticism in the right dose/frequency
There’s a pretty interesting self-help book that is designed to help couples share domestic and family work equally; I thought it was an interesting read. It makes exactly the same point about rockstar husbands that contribute less than their spouses.
https://www.fairplaylife.com/the-book
The central idea is a set of 100 cards representing various tasks that are necessary for running a household, that you split up between the two partners. Supposedly women tend to hold ~80 of the cards in most relationships.
The online discourse around this book can be kinda vitriolic (lots of examples of it starting arguments) but I do think that it’s a good starting point if you want to genuinely try to contribute equally.
> The online discourse around this book can be kinda vitriolic (lots of examples of it starting arguments)
Yeah, no wonder given that it starts with an unrealistic view that the average man is a lazy slob that sits around playing video games while his wife has to handle everything with children and the household. You keep waiting for her to mention that anything else might be possible throughout the book, but that never happens. I think gay couples were mentioned maybe once.
Yeah... I do have some issues with the book. I think that the cards tend to be weighted towards things that women care more about, which naturally means that women end up being responsible for more of them. And different cards require different amounts of time to handle.
The way that I’ve tried to handle this is to focus on equalizing “total time per week spent on managing cards”, which requires time-tracking but is more fair, and also negotiating a modified set of cards.
The book kinda suggests both of those but I think that in practice most people don’t implement them.
And, as you said, the tone of the book can be off-putting at times. I still feel like it’s the best available resource for this problem.
I had no problem with the cards or the system, I like and have tried them with my partner.
I haven't read into them much, (so maybe I shouldn't be repeating it here;) but there are studies about how even when women are the higher earners in relationships, they end up taking on a greater share of household management and maintenance work. (The rhetorical context is usually around why young women aren't as interested in dating.... But again, that's something I'm throwing out there w/o due diligence)
But the idea of having physical cards that you split up and assign does sound really helpful. I might look into that. I would say in my experience breaking out household chores even amongst roommates, some tasks that seem even aren't remotely so once you get into it (I have been the advantaged and disadvantaged party in different apartments) and some are simply different such that some are trivial for one person and not so for another person. But that's a part of dealing the cards, even when splitting evenly. (now I'm wondering if I can see where people are getting into arguments.... ^_^')
This is a conversation that ambitious women have been having for decades. To the point where it's a cliche. Having it about men and women is valuable, having it be about them separately I think masks some of the structural problems- e.g. better childcare, more and better laid out parental leave(1), etc.
Two things I've heard from different ambitious women: "To really achieve, you need a wife" is something I've heard a lot- that it takes one parent sacrificing some of their career priority; traditionally that was the woman but it in theory could be the man (2), it just rarely is.
The other thing an ambitious woman told me once is that her mom told her "husband, career, kids, pick two." Basically, there is just only enough energy for a given person per day to invest in two of them. I've seen some women who managed, from the outside, to at least look successful at all three, but it's rare indeed.
1: When my kid was born the software company I worked for (I'm an American at an American company, but this was an area of competition for software devs at the time) offered a 14 week paid parental leave, even for men. Most men took a four week ("secondary caregiver" leave) and overlapped it with their wives 12 week unpaid FMLA. I took mine (14 week "primary caregiver") after my wife's leave expired, such that our kid had one of us caring for him every moment of his first six months. I remain convinced that was absolutely vital as the basis for both my relationship with my son and with my wife- she had to rely on me, trust me to care for the kid, and I couldn't hand him off, it was all on me every day. And so we both developed the parental muscles, could trust that the other one understood the reality of the situation, in a way that many father's don't get a chance. And that experience convinced me that the US needs maternal leave, obviously, but it also needs paternity leave- and the policies need to be designed such that the woman has to be back at work for at least some of the paternity leave, it can't all be used concurrently.
2: In a recent survey of American households https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/04/13/in-a-gr... about 55% of American heterosexual marriages the man makes 60% or more of the household income, about 30% both halves of the couple were between 40-60%, and just 16% saw the woman make more than 60% of the household income. In the majority of the 16% the woman still spent more time on unpaid household chores and carework than the man they were out-earning. Only in the 6% of heterosexual marriages where the woman earned 100% of the income did the number of hours per week in unpaid labor of men even equal that of their female partner.
Nitpick comment. But is kids and career really a valid pick two choice
I think the point that my friend's mom was making to her was that for a woman (with significantly higher social expectations for the amount of care work and housework) you can only be good at two of the three, because you are a human being with a finite amount of time and energy.
As for how you end up with just those two, I think the answer is divorce: you don't spend the energy to maintain your relationship with your spouse. Before you had kids you could invest your time and energy in your spouse and your career, then the kids come along and your relationship with your spouse weakens, either all the way to divorce or to just a degraded state.
Yeah I can accept that point of view. I think this is highlighting a certain relationship expectation delta between men (or at least myself) and women (or some women). If my wife is doing well in her career and we are doing well with the kids, I could easily see this being considered ‘good’, but my wife may view the relationship as being neglected. I see the core functions working and consider the relationship doing well.
This situation is in development for me so we will see. 0 and 3 year old
Yeah, this is also what I see as the main threat to my relationship with my wife: my complacency, taking it and her for granted. We both work hard on our parenting our 9 year old, and our careers, but then you need to spend the time with each other, lest you become roommates who run an unpaid childcare service on the side.
And I do wonder if this is about the engineer mindset ('I've reduced this to a previously solved problem, I just let the subroutine handle it') or about the way that men are socialized in my culture (just take her out to dinner twice a year- Mother's Day and Valentine's- and remember her birthday and you're meeting social expectations) or what. But it's the biggest threat to my (and I'd hazard a guess most other) marriages.
> and the policies need to be designed such that the woman has to be back at work for at least some of the paternity leave, it can't all be used concurrently.
Not sure how to apply a legal framework, but in my area this is often enforced by the lack of daycare options for <2yos (the threshold might be lower, but about that much).
Very rare to see parents around me take their parental leave at the same time bc they'd be risking still being on a waitlist when they're done.
A good example is the crushing stories of Frank Zappa's kids. Here is the guy touring the world making millions of dollars, releasing albums non-stop. His kids, barely saw him. For instance, his daughter Moonunit said the most time ever spent with him was recording lines for the song Valley Girl, beyond that he was fairly absent.
I have heard similar stories from many you wouldn't know, they say the same thing about their partner or parents. The desire to have it all ends up trading one thing over the other.
I don't know what the right answer is but I do kind of feel this desire for equal effort might be misguided. My sister wanted to spend her time raising kids. Her husband less so. That is decision they made together. It's no different than any other difference. He like working on cars. She likes knitting. She doesn't require him to spend equal time on knitting and he doesn't require her to spend equal time on cars. Why are children any different?
Further, many cultures, past in particular, seem to be very different in terms of parent involvement. To take an example from fiction, Harry Potter goes to Hogwarts at 11 years old. Yes, that's fiction but it's based on current and past cultures. It's still a thing in the UK for "elite" kids as young as 7 or 8 to go to boarding school, away from their parents. Kids in places too far for a public school are often sent to other cities, to boarding schools. East Asia & India also have famous boarding schools.
The point being, this idea that parents must be with their kids many hours a day until they kids move out of the house at 18 or 21 is not a fact of life, it's a cultural choice. I am from that culture and wish to spend as much time as possible with my kids. But I can also see it's a cultural choice, not some universal way things must be or else bad stuff happens.
> The real heroes are the ones ambitiously raising the next generation while changing the world right now.
so pedagogy and psychology researchers? giving that having biological children is the worst ecological offense someone can do in an ever increasing worldwide population? [0] how about adopting and getting into voluntary programs or even do pro-social things with your money?
giving birth on the current societal status-quo not only screws with the future of our own specie but also a bunch of others which may go extinct because of our greed
[0] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/...
Things are considered important in the context of humanity. Environmental concerns only exist because of its impacts on humanity. The planet does not care.
Calling having children an ecological offence is like saying that best way to reduce emissions is for all people to die.
giving that having biological children is the worst ecological offense someone can do in an ever increasing worldwide population?
Have you ever heard of fracking? Or mining Gold using mercury?
you can perfectly justify whatever you want based on whatever else... will take myself for example: i just slave workers on my IT firm because there are sweatshops elsewhere /j
like there isn't a correlation on more resources being used or explored in a bigger population?
Or RTO mandates
Pretty unbelievable how much the near urban wild life managed to actually recover during covid lockdowns.
"People telling you"
That's the real problem. People need to stay in their damn lane.
I've started peering behind the curtains when I get the chance, and I've not yet found someone wildly successful who is also a model parent. Time after time, their spouse is quietly shouldering an enormous load, or their children spin their wheels and wind up rudderless, etc.
You can certainly be successful and be a good parent, but one of the first steps is recognizing and picking out the false prophets. You can't hold yourself to a superhuman standard, which is what a parent maximizing career while letting family malinger will present. They will say, Look at me, a captain of industry with vaults of gold, who has the physique of a twenty-five year old and is also an all-star parent. And you have to figure out that it's a lie.
One little clue - start to notice: of your professional idols who are good parents and seem to have it all, how many have a spouse working a demanding full time job as well? I realized for me it was zero.
Unfortunately, I think that this is possible, but it requires a superhuman well of energy, sleep deficit tolerance, and benevolence that very very few people possess. :/
Seriously, aside from the folks with the “2hrs of sleep is enough” gene, it’s not. It’s an actively harmful myth that is sold hard. Start gathering your own evidence, with a critical fact-finding eye. Don’t just accept the narrative. It’s one of those legitimizing stories that serves the teller.
Try watching The Dawn Wall or Free Solo, keep notes, and fill in the blanks on how long they were gone from family. It’s a canned example of how it gets glossed over.
The same attitude as towards gear in weightlifting is appropriate. They tell you it’s natty all day long, but you know delts don’t get that round without gear.
Yeah I think that word is spelled i-m-p-o-s-s-i-b-l-e.
> how many have a spouse working a demanding full time job as well? I realized for me it was zero.
Zero for me too, but boy are people quiet about it. Almost taboo to let on that that is the arrangement
Just wanted to say thank you for this. In particular, the part where often it seems the "Founder mode" icons some evangelize (seem to) neglect their children and/or effectively put childrearing entirely on their partner.
I wish I had a good term (or some other concise way) to reject/criticize this aspect of tech culture.
I say founders above but I see it happen in lots of my peers who are simply workaholics. The closest saying I have (which I repeat often) is:
"The only people who will remember you worked late are your kids."
> "The only people who will remember you worked late are your kids."
I really need to kick my engrossing tech hobbies. :(
And yes to the wider point. There are many people more capable people than me, but sometimes it's about priorities, and top achievers in fields will usually be sacrificing something else.
So this piece really resonates with me. I have a five month old child who I really like/love - but I am filled with a passionate software idea and everytime I get a tiny bit of time to work on it, it is heaven. A while back I was able to do one hour in the morning before work on it - but have lost that hur recently. At night, I occassionally look wistfully at my computer sometimes and wish I could build - but I am just trying to be patient and I am hopefully I will soon get back 'one hour' a day in my evenings. One day...
My partner and I are considering paying for a weekend nanny to look after the boy when he turns one on Sunday- so again we have free time to work on our passion projects. Its great to be a dad but it is so time consuming with young children.
Free time will return!
Not much, but some evenings will soon be available!
Thanks for your words - I live in hope :)
Having extreme career success (like the kind referred to in the article) is basically a lottery ticket. I spend a lot of time with my kids, because I figure even if I halve my chances of winning the lottery, well, the odds haven’t changed that much, all considered.
Exactly this! When I had my first two kids only a year apart and early in my career, I thought I'm giving something up because I could no longer invest as much time and effort into my projects and research ideas as before. But in retrospect, looking at how the field has evolved since etc., those ideas, which I had regretted I couldn't push harder, anyway had only a small chance for some grand success (beyond the low-medium success of the low-medium effort versions I managed to put together).
I'm shocked by the amount of time people who don't have kids waste.
So while PG may believe that people may have their "act already together" pre-kids, I sort of look at the amount of time people without kids waste and think "if only I had that much free time..."
Reminds me of that saying "The youth is wasted on the young". It's only once we truly have no time do we realize how much time we really had.
I love my kids but they take a lot of time. Wouldn't change it for the world though.
Yes. Before I became a dad, I didn't realize how physically and financially constrained people are with regards to number of kids that they have. For me and my wife, our first child took all our time, resources and energy.
This was a shock to me because my parents had 4 children and never seemed to struggle. Also, they were much better off than me financially and could afford to hire help.
My biggest achievement as a dad is the fact that my son speaks 3 languages. In spite of the fact that I was working full time, he still learned to speak my native language fluently from me. And I still did house chores too. And still worked on side hustles at night and weekends.
But yes, I had no life at all for 5 years straight. No life at all. I'm a shell of my former self. My main concern is that I'm showing my son a bad example of how a dad should be. I literally can't afford to raise him with the same values as I was raised with... Because he would grow up into someone like me and that would be my greatest fear.
Now I understand why some parents spoil their children and focus 100% on boosting the child's confidence. This is what you have to do if you're poor. Because you need your child to believe they are above you. That way when they see how shit your life is, they don't have to believe theirs will also end up like this.
I appreciate the intention you and others are bringing. Not to be defeatist, but I do wonder how much of trying to set it straight sticks long term?
People have been trying to straighten things out for millennia and we are still in this predicament.
That isn't to say, don't try. It is to say, don't cling to an out come.
The outcome I'm clinging to is freedom. Until I have that, nothing else matters.
At every point in my life after age 25 or so, I could look back 10 years and be appalled at how much time I wasted back then. 50-year-old me is angry at 40-year-old me for wasting my 40s, as 25-year-old me was angry at 15-year-old me for wasting my high school time. What a waste my youth always seems!
I generally tend to not have that feeling.
For me to feel like it is wasted is to put on a definition of the time period that wasn't there. It is internal personal fan fiction at that point.
I don't feel like I missed out on anything.
There is also the added point of whatever position you take, it is always a trade off with something else.
To be awfully reductionist. The fat people envy the skinny because their health is in check, the skinny envy the fat because they have a sense of care free freedom.
Nothing teaches productivity better than being a participating parent.
Not sure this is fully accurate. Managing kids can use up one's will power or self control resources considerably. There can also be sleep deprivation with young children and other energy drain. I'm not really sure but my focus / ability to avoid distractions at work may actually have gotten worse since having kids.
Yeah, work is now my time for tranquility.
My passion for tech remains, and now work is the time I spend on it, but not on my assigned priorities, sadly.
> I'm shocked by the amount of time people who don't have kids waste.
I'm shocked by the sanctimonious tone of those with kids; it's likely professional bias from having someone that needs schooling at home.
Then, I will always be amazed by how those with offspring feel the need to constantly validate and justify themselves for their choice, while those without barely touch the argument.
I felt very conflicted about this topic when I was young and working for Apple. I decided the Valley commute and rat race wasn’t very family conducive so I took a remote job and moved a few states over and it’s been great.
I’ve been fully remote for 12+ years now, and I’ve had a very successful career in engineering and engineering leadership. I also have eight kids that I get to spend a ton of time with. There’s a remote tax on career growth, but my RE side hustles have more than compensated for it.
Every now and then I wonder what might have been if I had stayed at Apple. No way to know for sure, but I probably couldn’t have afforded the family and lifestyle that I enjoy now.
8 kids! Well if anyone wants to ask for parenting advice, they can go to you as you are a lone human data set.
How is having numerous kids correlated with being a good parent? If anything, the reverse is probably true.
There’s “how to be a good parent” advice and there’s also “oh boy how do we manage mealtimes and laundry and the school run” type advice. Someone with lots of kids is going to have great insights into the latter at very least.
If he’s the father, he may have no involvement in the logistics whatsoever. Especially if he has a large family.
Probably would have just remained as an apple lifer
RE side hustles, as in, reverse engineering?
Maybe ambitious is not the right word. It's more like, at some point you have to go home.
Before my kids, I started at sunrise, and coming home was optional. Then I got married and divided my attention. Then I got twins, so I divided it even more. But it doesn't make me any less ambitious, in fact, I have more fire behind me to ensure I give them a bright future. It's just that, I come home on time now.
Edit: and thank you for writing this post. It's rarely something we mention in our personal blogs, but it's always nice to know how diverse this culture is.
Twins is a different league entirely. Hats off
Exactly. If he means successful instead, then we can have different definitions of successful. That being said, I don't think most startup founders have the same definition of successful as that meets: dad that wants to be there for their children.
> having kids may make one less ambitious
Can't say this resonates with me. Though being a dad has wildly changed what I'm ambitious about.
'Ambitious' often means doing optional things that take time.
A single person who cuts back on time spent doom scrolling / tv watching / beer drinking to teach themselves enterprise Kubernetes sysadmin best practices is ambitious.
A new parent who cuts back on time with their kids to teach themselves enterprise Kubernetes sysadmin best practices needs their head checked.
Unless you need a job to keep that kid housed because you made the unfortunate decisions of taking jobs at companies that didn't use kubernetes...
Man, re-read this comment in 10 years
I’m far less ambitious, but not less driven. It’s just that what I’m driving for is to maximize time doing things I and my family enjoy. In fact it’s a lens through which I analyze jobs and career opportunities.
Like OP with my first kid, I constantly had itchy fingers -- too many ideas to ever execute on. Tired and no more flow state. Work seemed like a waste of time with politics. My hobbies were my outlet - and now it was reduced to maybe 1 hrs a day.
Then AI got good. I've always been able to solve problems fast in my head, but was bottlenecked by fingers and dumb infra.
AI gave me my time back honestly. Nix solved infra. backlog CLI kept the work clear. Good engineering, in spurts.
Now I have more execution power than ever, and I can steer my minions. Yes, I don't get to code and there is little flow state, but I always better liked to solve a problem and go to the next than actually typing it out.
From my phone, wireguard and aVNC to my homelab, I conduct ralph loops on my architecture and principles. This is so powerful, that my brain poops out even more ideas - and so I find myself fully immersed - another kind of flow state.
Consequence: Brain fry and less sleep, so sometimes I just crash out and sleep for 10 hrs. Usually get 5-6 hrs nowadays.
First definition of ambition in merriam webster is "an ardent desire for rank, fame, or power." Ambition is basically definitionally antisocial.
A desire to accumulate power is tantamount to a desire to accumulate wealth. Most ways to wealth these days involve finding ways to consume more of the world's resources or siphon resources to yourself.
Consider refining word choice. (Though if your notion of ambition corresponds to building a sillycon valley startup, then 'ambition' is probably the right word.) I don't mean that nothing good ever comes of technology; I mean that VC-funded startup tech is mostly done in the pursuit of money, damn any social consequences.
A flip on this reading. Rank, fame, and power all rely on others to enable it.
Sort of like how a narcissistic person ultimately needs others to validate them.
You aren't wrong, it just can be read two ways.
I can think of three other great dads who were hugely ambitious:
* Jimmy Carter * Bill Clinton * Barak Obama
Do we really know?
This resonates a lot with how I felt while building our company. My kids were born during the early days of our startup and it was pretty much what he described- work and being a dad. Thankfully the startup was pretty successful and I made a good amount of money that’s allowed me the luxury of not having to work when the older one was 10. I am really enjoying not working and being a full time dad :-)
I once bumped into a couple of very high profile VCs sitting outside a coffee shop. Somehow the conversation got round to the fact that we were potty training our 12-month-old. One of the VCs told me their two kids, 2 and 3 years old, weren't yet out of nappies, just used pull-ups, because there hadn't been time to potty train them. There are reasons why this could have been legit (failed attempts, developmentally challenged children, etc.) but it was delivered as a kind of admonishment that I was involved in potty-training at all (even though their fund hadn't invested in my business or even been pitched).
It really depressed me at the time, realising there was a class of entrepreneurs and backers who were genuinely stop-at-nothing, even if it meant their three-year-old at day care was wondering why he was the only nappy-wearer, and carrying that subliminally into later life.
What I learnt from that and host of other experiences over time was that a young family and running a venture-backed, high-growth trajectory business aren't very compatible, but...
What I've also learned is that your first venture's going to be imperfectly executed anyway, so get the learnings out of the way anyway, with kids in the picture, then go again when the kids are school-age, and hope they get to enjoy the fruits of venture number two as teenagers.
Also, I never saw consistency from the people who put venture before family. They'd be buying shots for young staff at 11.00 at night on a week night, checking their crypto-balance continously, micro-managing, taking unnecessary business trips, etc. There are some absolute time-management machines out there, who never seem to waste a moment of their working days (I know two, and they both combined successful startups and young families), but in reality everyone needs some downtime/respite and family time is a better restorative than anything else except pure rest.
On that point, there's the famous adage, 'Startup, sleep, parenthood. Pick any two.' I picked startup and parenthood. Sleep deprivation means I look 10 years older than I am, but no regrets.
Finally, I think kids give you a second wave of competitive determination after your initial ambition wanes. Problematic investors, cheating competitors, over-demanding enterprise customers, careless execs, etc. could leave a lone individual feeling sorry for themselves, and defeatist. It's amazing how creative and determined one becomes when it feels like these different personas are causing setbacks that, rathervthan just interfering with your personal ambitions, might be stealing your kids' future opportunities and financial security.
I believe parents should definitely aim for both.
If you have kids and you prioritize your career to the point you never see your kids, and you will have huge and legitimate regrets later in life. Especially if you don't achieve Jobs / Musk level of financial success. That's pretty common knowledge.
But the opposite is also true. As parents, we're always examples for our kids, for better or worse. Do we want our kids to see us abandon our dreams 'because of them' or do we want them to see their parents showing them how to go after their dreams, because that's what life is about ?
The middle way, perhaps? What "dreams" are more important than having a strong connection with your kids? Not only are the regrets that will come later in life huge and legitimate, they would also be irreversible. But, assuming you're in relatively good health midlife, you can always attempt to build the 5 startups that will almost definitely fail. Just my opinion of course.
That's what I'm saying, maybe not with right words then.
Strong connections with kids are the most important thing, but it cannot be the only one. It wouldn't end great neither for both parties.
Ah, I may have misunderstood your comment. I thought you were leaning more towards the "dream" part. But so my comment also meant to say that the definition of ambition and success changed after becoming a parent. I know I won't be curing cancer in my lifetime and so what thing is really important that I have to sacrifice time with my children for? To me, being the founder of the next failed facebook for cats is just not it.
Note that I am not talking about earning a living and thus necessarily sacrificing time doing that and showing your kids that sometimes you have to work hard to survive in a decent way. I am talking about the parents who outsource their children to childcare to work to pay off the loan on their third car and newest iphone and tell you that they have no choice.
thank you for this, very well written, and rings true.
I will say for me this is the root contradiction:
> I do not believe the quality time theory. I firmly believe in maximizing the quantity of time spent with them; there are no diminishing returns for them on that front.
If you believe that to be the most true statement, then it leads to the conclusion that you should work as little as possible to spend as most time with them, up to and including not working at all. The ambition to be kidmaxxing, if you will. This is incompatible with career ambition obviously.
I guess i'm just sharing the same frustration but with a stronger conclusion - it seems fundamentally contradictory to be ambitious in both, at least at young ages. Seems like we're fooling ourselves if we think you can, we're compromising on one aspect at least.
Ultimately any two ambitions will compete with each other for finite time and energy. (Assuming each ambition benefits from more time and energy being spent on it, which is usually the case.)
You can be reasonably successful in multiple areas, but you can't max them all, you have to compromise somehow.
i agree. But i read the blog post as the author trying to escape having to compromise. Which, as we seemingly both think, is not possible.
I read the post as the author acknowledging the compromise, expressing frustration about it, and determining to live on the pareto frontier with his strategy of focus and discipline and so on. Sacrificing other things in order to achieve both ambitions at a high level (though not maximizing either one).
"Maximising time within reason" is probably a better construction. As usual if you follow these arguments to their absolute meaning they become ridiculous
But what’s “within reason”? Right now I have an unlimited list of ambitions of things to do with my kids. Traveling, sports, skiing, mountain biking, surfing, camping, building, electronics, etc etc… there are not enough hours in a year to do just those with zero paid work. Is that ridiculous, assuming I can afford to do so?
"Define nuance" I dunno, it depends on all of the factors that go into your life. There might be a lower level construction of the logical argument but it eludes me and begins to feel arbitrary
He forgot to talk about hobbies :)
I had a conversation about this topic yesterday with a colleague of mine. We both found some kind of career-family balance, and are continually honing it. However, we both lamented the loss of hobbies.
Just have a rule that you'll leave the office at 17:00.
I try this, but it has issues.
* Sometimes I'm in flow state, and so breaking at 17:00 breaks that.
* 17:00 is rush hour, so if so leave then, my commute goes from 60m to 90m. So I leave at 16:00, and catch up later. But now I'm context switching more.
* If it's 14:30 and I know I'm leaving at 16:00, then I'm hesitant to work on something that might need more focus/debugging.
All these are workable, and many parents are testament to that, but at least for me, it's all contributing to less productivity.
Just wanted to say thanks for putting words to the anxiety that lurks in the back of my mind most days. Glad to know I'm not alone.
Being a parent teaches you how to stop procrastinating and use every second you have available. You are at your most productive era (work items per minute spent).
The bad news is that the day still has 24 hours, and that means that your career needs to adapt.
For example I had to turn down an opportunity that would require me to be putting 70 hours per week and I stayed at a job that I could do 9-5. That opportunity went sideways (the startup failed) so overall my career is fine.
The so called human progress and advanced lifestyle made the simple and natural things such as having kids an adventure.
Where did the "progress" go wrong? Why did it take us backwards in the very basic goals of human life and why is it still called progress?
I don't know if progress made it more hard to spend time with kids, on average.
In older generations, men spent relatively little time with little kids. I don't know if it was social convention or lack of time. Either way, it seems that now a lot more dads are spending time with kids than 2 generations earlier.
I agree that it is hard, but I would not paint a bleak picture.
A lot of good stuff in this thread. The party I'll add and haven't seen yet is that I think being a dad has made me a better people manager at work. I think about humans more than ever and that has helped make me more efficient at work
I knew one lovely guy who was a young dad. He started in the server team and was team leader in 6 months.
Not because he knew about the tech, though he was learning fast, but because he knew how to wrangle and intermediate the man-children.
Being a dad is fulfilling enough that I don’t want to do anything else but hang out with my kids. Perhaps that’s what Paul Graham meant when he said kids make you less ambitious? And I know the day will come when they won’t like to hang out with me, so I’ll have the time to go back to building things.
Thanks for sharing
Being dad is really hard joyful, you watch they grow from a tiny one to some big one which argue with you also sometimes care you when you sad
I quit from a high pay job because I want to enjoy more time with kids because I feel not get enough in my childhood
I like to read philosophy and settled with existentialism, this helps with the stress of low earning compared the previous time
Life may all about trade off, we may not lucky to get everything we want
Love the article. One question; how do you unwind? I think it's achievable to spend enough time on both your career and your children, but consequently personal time will suffer.
How do you balance that?
One of the biggest challenges I have as an ambitious engineer and a father of two, is that I do actually have plenty of time to be a high achiever in both facets of my life, but only if I'm working in isolation.
My kids are active in about 12-13 hour period between 6.30am and 7.30pm. The rest of the time they're asleep. On school days, window of time in which I can actually be present with them narrows right down to two blocks: 6.30-8.30, and 3.30-7.30. That's only 6 hours in a business day in which I can be active and present with them, leaving me with 18 hours to get everything else done.
There's obviously more to being a dad than just being actively engaged with your children when they're at home and awake. There's all this supplemental work that needs to happen to support them as well. But it's not _that_ much.
The problem is that this I spend with my children actively overlaps the time in which my peers and co-workers are working. Not being available to my teams for synchronous communication slows down their execution, and not having my team available to me while I'm working slows down my own execution. When my team or I need answers or collaboration to unblock us, communicating asynchronously means we can potentially be blocking for half a day or more on a task.
At that point you can either just wait and be unproductive, or start/continue a different task, maintaining multiple active work streams. The latter is problematic for a number of reasons, such as the increased cognitive load of regular context switching, an inability to work on dependent tasks, etc.
So ultimately for me, I don't think the issue is that there's not enough time to do both, it's just that both work and family generally need you at the same time.
A somewhat unpopular opinion, but personally I don't mind being kind of absent in my kids' lives relative to others' expectations. I think there's been some expectation creep around parental involvement for high-achieving couples without much concrete evidence that it hurts long-term outcomes, assuming the child is otherwise healthy and well taken care of. There's also something to be said for leaning on grandparents and other support structures more heavily than a lot of people currently do.
One "superpower" from being married with kids is that your life becomes a lot more predictable. Like, having sex regularly and spending quality family time is probably a healthy part of a balanced, productive lifestyle, and is a good counterbalance to the stresses of a demanding career - it's nice not to always be thinking about how you're going to get laid, or in the event that you do become successful, whether or not your partner is just gold digging you or something. Although a lot of that depends on who you marry and making sure you're both doing good maintenance.
I think the difference between your opinion and others is that for many being a dad is the intention and not an expectation. They want the experience of being an active and present parent. If it were purely about obligation, in this day and age they probably just wouldn't have children.
> without much concrete evidence that it hurts long-term outcomes, assuming the child is otherwise healthy and well taken care of.
Not to pick on others’ life choices, but I don’t think that this particular assertion is true. Depends on your evidentiary bar, I suppose, but just from googling it:
* Mass General’s Fatherhood Project (https://thefatherhoodproject.org/schools/the-research/): “Findings from the rapidly growing science of early childhood and brain development show that a father’s active participation and emotional engagement with his children leads to improved social, emotional, behavioral, and academic outcomes.”
* NYTimes (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/03/health/fathers-child-heal...): “Research Finds Interaction With Father, Not Mother, Affects Child Health”
* https://firstfivenebraska.org/blog/6-ways-children-benefit-f... provides a catalog of evidence and reported benefits
For what it's worth, I had a "high-achieving" dad. The big house, going on vacation and all that jazz was nice, sure. My grandparents and the support system were cool too. I consider the grandma who raised us while he worked like my second mother. I definitely would have preferred to get to spend a lot more time with him before he got old. Cause he is now, that wheel ain't turning back, and I barely got to know him. He was present as much as he could with the career he chose.
We turned out okay, no major problems with any of us, decent careers, whatever. I guess we probably wouldn't have turned out much better. So yeah, I guess there wouldnt have been much in terms of better "outcome". Still, my siblings have voiced the same regret. I genuinely think he does too. The expectation of being more present than he was is one I give myself, not "expectation creep".
Just because you don't see the many small moments when your children need you doesn't mean they don't exist; trust me bro, they do. Your partner or support network is probably doing too much to cover for your absence, to you and your kids' detriment. Unless you're a horrible bastard, they'd probably rather have you around more.
I grew up having a "kind of absent" father who focused on his high-paying career more than spending time with his kids. He no doubt rationalized it to no end, but the net result was that he wasn't there when I needed him the most. Growing up I often wished we were poorer so he could be around more.
I agree in the strongest terms with the article's rejection of "quality time" as a substitute for quantity, and the rejection of delegating away one's parenting.
I agree so strongly that I walked away from a promising postgraduate degree and millions of dollars of future compensation in my relatively secure MAANG position to be a full-time father to my young children.
I know not everyone can do this and don't know what the future will hold, but at least we'll be together.
"Startup, parenting, hobbies, friends. I think you can do 2 of these well. But you'll have to quite light on the others."
Someone on X, don't recall who, but it resonated.
For “parenting” and “startup”, I would say that each is extremely hard to do well even when it’s the only thing on the list.
Parenting is easy. Kids don't need the fussy obsessiveness that has become characteristic of modern parneting.
Uh, I think at the very least you have to caveat on the age of the kids. Babies need a lot of fussy obsessiveness. Kids arms aren’t long enough for them to wipe their own ass until they’re about 4. Don’t know when you get them to start doing laundry or dishes but that takes longer still.
Watching my kid grow up I realise that despite the modern world having/wanting so many kids we really don't build affordances for them.
Most kids 5-8 at the family dinner table are trying to eat from a plate at shoulder height. No wonder they don't care about cutlery use. It's pretty hard to put downwards force on a knife that is at shoulder height, let alone coordinate all the minor muscle movements required.
The bathroom sink in most houses, similar height, and they struggle to reach taps and soap.
Little stools abound around the home!
But then you go out and public toilets have hand driers right next to their head. No surprise they complain it is too damn loud!
In a world where we supposedly want kids, if for no other reason than to keep society going, we sure don't make it easy for them.
Parenting is work, but it's straightforward. People obsess and fuss over the kids.
It shouldn't be hard though. For me personally, I'm mostly friends with other dads with kids and I do my hobbies (music, rock climbing, skiing) with my kids. It's not that difficult.
This. Involve your kids in your hobbies. If they aren't interested, that's okay too -- you can be involved in theirs. Some hobbies have a finite life anyway. You aren't going to be a gymnast forever, for example, and that's okay.
“Completely removing time-wasting activities”
Is a bit harsh to me. You might be ultra competitive but it could also be how you define it. But in my opinion sometimes “time wasting activities” are needed for recharging your own batteries and this kind of phrasing sounds like burnout.
Like if I said fishing someone would justify it as not being time wasting etc or meditating or something you would justify as health work but that justification is even contradictory to meditation at all.
time wasting is an odd phrase and stressful wording to me I don’t like. “wasting time” can sometimes be a productive and useful endeavor.
Conflating low quality downtime (like scrolling on your phone) to fishing is not fair. I've probably been happiest during periods of almost zero downtime (but still separate days off)
You’re missing my point that is that any activity that does not have a means to an end or reaching some goal or objective does not make it a negative… unless you’re ultra competitive and every single activity (even spending time with your kids) has to be seen as a means to an end.
This is pretty accurately defined as spiritual materialism
This feels really weird. I feel like I’m far more productive than ever now, even with half the time spent and zero crunch. When I was younger I was flailing around doing tons of pointless shit. I could make up for that with more effort, but it doesn’t change that I can achieve the same result with far less effort now. So the output with children is more or less the same as before.
There’s also the simple fact that it’s much better for your productivity to play a round of tag than it is to attend another stupid meeting.
Preach!
Bryan Cantrill (inventor of DTrace and cofounder of Oxide Computer) comes to mind as someone who seems to do both. It’s hard to know somebody’s parenting quality from the outside, but he talks about his kids a lot.
In his case, I think he didn’t start his company until his kids were older. I’m not sure what the early childhood years were like for him.
Father of three and startup founder here.
In college, I burned out on normal coursework and dropped out to teach myself how to code instead. To support myself, I worked in restaurants. I found that working as a dishwasher was quite complementary to learning to code. It was tiring physically, but I ended each day in need of mental stimulation, so went home and coded all night.
Now, as a father, I've found there's a similar complementarity in some ways but not others. There's a huge physical component to parenting, and this is perfectly complementary. There's also an emotional aspect (sometimes 2 or even 3 cry at once). This can be complementary or not depending on how much emotional labor work required (usually very little).
The one area where both work and kids is exhausting is attention. A toddler demands a huge amount of attention, and performing at work does too.
Well said. I hope some day to make it and start parent.capital a place where parents can get funding. I believe there are thousands of people out there with great ideas and immense talent who are unable to leave their salary and benefits behind to pursue them.
How is that different than normal VC? Most people I know get healthcare as soon as they are funded. The problem is what happens before that.
When you become a parent, your risk profile changes immensely. I can hire some of the world’s best people tomorrow if i can promise them equal salary, benefits and retirement accounts for a set number of years. Plus the benefit of a large upside if it works. Most startups offer lower salaries and abysmal benefits. Security matters.
I still don’t get it. It sounds like the business plan is to fund companies so they can offer compelling employment. That’s great but that’s no different than any other VC.
Then again don't forget being ambitious enough to be an ambitious founder, ambitious dad and an ambitious husband/wife/partner. And then being healthy enough to have energy to do all three. I keep thinking if I divide 24 hrs by 4, that would be the optimal time allocation to all 4 endeavors, but that's naive.
The weird thing is how most of the comments here are from dads saying it's hard but worth it in various ways. I've been scrolling for a while and failed to find an alternative point of view.
I guess HN users like their kids. Maybe enough time spent on software increases the relative percieved value of hardware.
It is not hard at all but worth it in many ways, then.
Literally:
> 1. birds & bees
> 2. time
> 3. ???(more time)
> 4. legacy
This essay feels like the 2010s when feminists were debating if it were possible as a women to "have it all": successful/satisfying career, family, and personal life.
“All the people I admire most are builders.”
If parenting and building are both truly aspirations, why not have people you admire that are great parents as well? I guess they don’t have many biographies for great moms and dads.
I admire the ambition. I wonder how many people out there are chasing both of these things, thinking they are being great parents and great builders, but are failing at one, or both.
"I firmly believe in maximizing the quantity of time spent with them; there are no diminishing returns for them on that front."
This is something that should be self evident to any parent, no need to write or read a piece to establish that truism.
Time to close the laptop and spend time with the kids...
I don’t know about you, but sometimes ambition is just to put food on the table. That’s all it’s ever got me and the rest is the dream to escape a life of work work work.
I wonder if the solution is simply to focus and effectively use resources so you can be effective and ambitious in a reasonable number of hours. Which is fine for 99.99%. Only if you are at the helm of discovering a revolution in physics or changing the world in some other way then go all in when you have kids. Which today is rare since team work makes the dream work way more. Of course there is greed. If you are greedy that is a different thing.
Solution to what?
Regret
I think the hardest part is how to define “waste”. Are you “wasting” your time if you go to a school event for your kids during the weekday? Is it a waste of time walking your kids to the bus? Is it a waste of time reading to my kids before they sleep? I argue it’s extremely hard to draw that line and a personal question for sure but being “efficient” is hard.
Be a parent, ffs. And be it, 100%. Be it 500%.
Having kids is easily and by a huge distance the very best thing you can “build”. It’s the best project you’ll ever make.
If you can find a way to run a cool thing on the side then great. I’ve been lucky, or something, and I have. And I love it.
But my kids are a trillion times more important. And now they’re 21 and 19 I can live knowing that I’ve launched the best couple of projects in the world.
The IPO in my parental project arrived and stocks are doing well :-)
How much did you sell them for?
Kidding, I largely agree with what you have said, my 3 year old is amazing. Teaching him big words and concepts brings me a huge amount of joy.
Ha :-)
3 is fun. They get better and better I reckon!
It is not just the time. Having kids (dependents) consciously or subconsciously lowers your risk threshold. Makes you less flexible in a lot of aspects. All these little things will lead to tempering your ambitions or take on additional stress to keep it up..
The modern (mostly western?) obsession with "parenting" as a job/hobby is truly despicable. Probably as despicable as the standard education factory farming most of these parents are subjecting their children to. It is a miracle that despite all this parenting and education, some children manage to grow into fully formed individuals.
I love my parents. They are not perfect, but as much as they could afford, they never stood in my way. I love my children and I will strive to provide for them the resources, space, and freedom to grow and become who they are as individuals with infinite potential. I will never treat them as extensions of myself.
I'm writing this for the log, so I can remember my ideals. I'm sure everyone here has disagreements, opinions and wisdom that they wish to impart, but I frankly don't care. A culture that condones keeping dysgenic inbred mutilated wolves in one's house to satisfy the pleasure of "caring" for an animal weaker than oneself has no lessons to teach me about raising children. Whatever lessons I could distill from it for myself, I have already done so.
You touch on the right point when you say “completely removing time-wasting activities.” Looking at a handful of biographies and trying to extract universal lessons from them is somewhat misguided/infantile.
“You can’t have it all” frequently comes unbidden into my brain when thinking about this sort of thing.
I don’t know, my goals are more and more about cool stuff I can do with my kids, and far less about business stuff? I’m not less ambitious but my ambitions have changed?
I too have to disagree with pg on that line `> having kids may make one less ambitious`. The fact is that the world is very very multi-modal, i.e. the brains of people and how they think are wildly different. I think having kids makes me more ambitious and more focused, and more selective re the problems I work on, partly because I am also setting an example.
Being a great dad is also enough. Raising good kids is a huge benefit to society.
>"This sucks. I am ambitious: I wake up every morning with a burning fire in my stomach to build awesome things."
And then his company is an AI slop no-code website generator...
The trade offs are real, but a suppressed desire to have kids can lead to dissatisfaction and with time that will be hard to ignore or fix.
Also, let's just not ignore that Musk is wildly successful in having shown you an example that you don't have to choose one thing
He sure as heck failed at the family thing.
True, but try being a dad to 14 kids in today's world.
With the billions he has, not a problem if he actually tried.
When he dies, I while track the titles of news articles about the inheritance fight with mild amusement. I won't read the articles however...
He's having kids only to satisfy his eugenist, white supremacist kink. He doesn't care about them and even hate them if they stray out of his worldview - just ask Vivian.
I'm coming out of the period where my kids need less help and it's really great working on projects alongside my kids making stuff. I try to model working on my projects as something that is enjoyable to me and that I am working over a long time period.
I like it. Great points made.
I would only add that if increasing general family cohesion is one of your goals, I think having lots of kids accomplishes that. Having a large family and multiple automatic life long best friends brings me so much joy.
> setting clear rules on time with kids (weekday dinners, weekends prioritize family) and
Are these examples or an exhaustive list? Eating dinner during the week is.. not a lot. So I assume it's about setting time limits for these activities?
Many years before becoming a Dad, I recall watching a video recorded by the Penny Arcade web cartoon folks while working where they reflected on both becoming fathers and asked themselves if it had been a net drain on their productivity and creativity.
They both concluded (not quickly, they discussed it) no, because it forced both of them to level up their time management game, quit whining and learn to get on with it, to the point where they generally got more done a couple of years in.
I have found this to be true. Our little one is turning 3 in November, and while the first two years were a bit slower (I took half a year of work while my wife finished up her Master's, etc.), in 2026 I've so far had a fantastic year and find myself much more capable of juggling more balls at the same time, finally learned the skill of grabbing sleep where I can, etc. I'm pretty sure I already "had my act together" (as per the article) and was doing well career-wise, but raising the stakes on the family side has definitely only improved things.
Got a whole lot of Open Source work done, reverse engineered an old cult video game I used to play, wrote HMI and firmware for a robot used in the Great Pyramid of Egypt for a scientific mission, taught myself GPRs and built a new radar control system, spent a week rolling around in the dust of millenia inside Khufu's Pyramid, etc., all next to the day job.
The most unexpected professional/skills growth and fun year I've had in a while, and it's all so much more meaningful when I get to share it with the little one.
I agree with this. Especially as you gain experience and your work becomes less day to day grunt work and more high level strategic thinking, having constraints on time actually has been beneficial for me.
Taking work problems into other spheres of my life, especially parenting, gives me distance and a new lens to view them through.
Have discipline, and you'll have all the time you need.
Easier said than done, I mean, what I am doing here?
Love this thinking and wish we'd see more content like this on HN.
If your ambition is to have lots of free time and not too much responsibility...that's also difficult to balance with having kids.
I feel like my dreams have died with becoming a parent and having a family. 2 hours of free time isn't enough focus time to do anything significant or learn anything. I thought abound going back to school recently and there's no practical way to pull it off. Once they're in school I'll be in my 40s anyway. I doubt I'm pivoting my life into anything fun at that point. It's been tough to deal with mentally.
I am in nearly the exact same boat as the OP. I'll observe a few things after having 2 kids and running a startup at the same time for a few years...
* Your amount of "lost" time with kids is often less than you think. On one side, you very likely socialized more, traveled more, were less disciplined about what you worked on, etc. On another side, some things that you are going to do anyway (dishes, maybe calling your parents, groceries), you can often do with kids, and so this time isn't really "lost"
* If you are fortunate enough to have some means, you might consider not outsourcing parenting, but outsourcing "life admin" work. Specifically things like laundry, dishes, buying groceries, picking up around the house, etc. I recently got someone to come to our house 3x / week for 3 hours and it's a game changer for me and my wife (who also works). (I know my point above says you can do some of this with kids, and that's kind of true, but not always, and it still lets you do other things with your time)
* Assuming you have a partner, and the premise here is you still want to be a very active parent, then I recommend being very deliberate about almost never parenting together. As in, one of you take all the kids, and the other can do what they want for 1-4 hours at a time.
Lastly, while I'm a pretty active dad myself, I reject the premise put forth here that your job is to maximize the time spent with your kids, as if this is the main metric by which parenting success should be judged. Just no. Actively no. Kids having time alone and with their own friends outside of the eye or ear of their parents is a really important part of growing up. Kids having time with various caregivers who are not their parents (be that grandparents, aunts, uncles, friend's parents, camp counselors, babysitters) is also good and healthy.
The struggle is real though. There's no easy answer. Hope these thoughts help!
I grew up in a huge family with a dad who wasn't particularly successful but spent all his time working anyway, with little attention to either the household or to building relationships with his kids.
I think this was mostly a matter of temperament; he liked to work and he didn't really care much about the operation he was funding, which is unfortunately why he has no contact with most of his adult children today.
All that to say, I didn't mind that he worked a lot, but it was pretty damaging that he almost never spoke to me other than for urgent logistical or disciplinary reasons. Just, you know, don't do that.
family life is not about "compounding gains" -- in part because family life is not about "gain" at all. On the contrary - you sacrifice and are ultimately consumed! The language of investing is entirely out of place in this context.
> Steve Jobs literally abandoned his daughter Lisa because “the time wasn’t right” (he was focused on Apple).
Steve Jobs is also a criminal. See the court cases where he underpaid developers and conspired with other companies to avoid hiring people away. That is criminal.
See https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jan/23/steve-job... and many similar reports. It is time to stop idolizing this guy. The "time was not right" is not surprising by someone who steals money from developers, which Steve did here. Apple owes people money.
I'm a father. Best thing I ever did, but it is work, it is hard.
In ways, it really crisped up my time working on work. My wife and I have some bottom lines, we're invovled, we have dinner as a family every day. We go to school events, all of them. We go to sports and activities, all of them (although there have been some times we had to split up and each to a different one.) I'm at the table when my kids have breakfast, every day except when I travel for work which is a week or two per quarter. It's great for the kids, it's great for the family but suddenly it feelds like your day is shorter. Personally, I have tried to find other "thought time" and that has resulted in much better execution when I get to writing code or plans or whatever. I used to sit at the blank editor and start to compose but now I am forced to think more before hand. I've built a few things I honestly don't think I could have built before kids, just out of necessity, I've had to be more efficient and effective.
There are also times of utter exhaustion but I had those before kids. I'll also went through the process of sort of cutting out extras to make time, once your kids are in that 10-11 age, they'll have friends and interests, I've added some of those extras back because they are busy on Sunday afternoons or whenever.
Weekday dinners? Pff.. I'm 100x better parent, and probably 100x less productive. But my employer is happy with me, I'm happy too, and my wife and kids too. So happy, I do not need to write articles about it.
Beat that
Money can solve most of these problems? Send your kid to daycare, hire a nanny or two and then the world will believe you can be a great father and ambitious and successful in your career. They do not see the village taking care of your kid while you are busy with work
Articulates my thoughts and conundrums better than I could have.
My career plateaued as soon as I had kids. I don't regret it, but companies definitely don't promote people with kids as rapidly, almost as if they know they have extra bargaining power over them because they have dependents to worry about.
If you have something to live for, you're less valuable to the company. That's more about corporate politics than some fundamental underlying truth about your productivity potential as a parent
I have had to very deliberately and repeatedly let myself off the hook for ambitions while parenting. There is SO MUCH that I am hungry to do, and none of it is as important as being fully present with my kids.
Will there come a time when these are more complimentary than in conflict? Maybe! But while the kids are young, not often. And while I feel the conflict, it’s helpful to have somewhat pre-decided what I’d regret more, and it would be not having connected with them.
If there’s time later to do great things, especially with them, so much the better.
One thing I hate about SV culture is the bullshit. Are we talking about making lots and lots of money? If so, please for the love of god just say so.
Fame? Status?
I had roughly the same realization about the pillars of math & science years ago. Many terrible, terrible parents whose children suffered mightily. While I had aspired to intellectual impact all my life, I had an unexpected realization. I could not bear the thought of being famous and intellectually successful yet having totally failed my children. It reversed my longstanding priorities, and I realized I wanted to be a parent more than I had thought.
I still believe that having passionate and driven parents is good for kids.
Being a dad has brought more focus into my life as an entrepreneur.
Great parents are invisible.
Being a dad has made me a more focused entrepreneur.
This is something that makes me really sad, because as an extremely ambitious man, I've found it difficult to make friends with men who are similarly ambitious. It seems that everyone gives up once they have a kid and becomes a helicopter parent. I like to think I'm a good dad (have four kids; work from home; regularly do sports, music, etc with them; cook regularly) and also pretty ambitious (work in a MAANA company, have side businesses and gigs, have a good marriage, hobbies, exercise, etc), but it's difficult to find other dads into this. Or at least that's my perception here in Portland, OR. I've met a few, but most ambitious people seem uninterested in kids, and the ones interested in kids seem thoroughly unambitious in my opinion.
What really stands out reading this piece is how different this attitude is than what we as a society thought 50 years ago. The great men name-dropped in the article surely had more on their plates than the average 1960s middle manager at G.E., or corporate attorney, or advertising agency VP, or shift manager at a Ford plant, and thus were surely more absent parents than their contemporaries. But in that era, fathers didn't even lose any sleep over it. It was just accepted that their primary role was to bring home as much money as possible to pay for a better life for their family, and if you're lucky to leave a legacy as a builder of great things or organizations. It was the mother's job to raise the children (or in the wealthiest families, perhaps that fell to the nanny(s) while the mother focused on socializing or hobbies).
In two generations, we've gone from that to most dads constantly asking themselves "Am I a good enough dad? How could I be better?" Fathers feel that they aren't good enough if they merely provide for a good life for their family and set a good example. They try to find a way to, while of course not dropping the ball at all on the provider role, also be a 'fun dad' and a friend to their kids and be deeply involved in their lives.
I would say this is also kind of a mirror image to women's very real struggle post-1980 or so -- before, you were absolutely acknowledged to be a success if you cared well for the next generation of children and taught them to be good people. Some would say (and still do) that's one of the most important callings. Now women worry that they're not good enough unless they - without missing a beat on that first mission - also have an impactful and meaningful commercial career.
This isn't arguing to force people to perform only one sex-prescribed role or anything. And I don't want any parents to just be absent, because frankly being there for your kid is incredibly rewarding. I'm just saying, I think it's an insane amount of pressure we put on mothers AND fathers to be everything to everyone both within the family and in the professional world.
One of my fears is that I can't live up to how my kids look up to me.
Reality check: this guy worked on "Mocha is an online AI powered app builder. It allows everyone to build web apps, no coding required"
He 'loves' building. Building what? Crypto thing when crypto is hot and AI thing when AI is hot? Is there a word to describe this behaviour that we may be familiar with?
I believed this idea of kids = dead dreams for a long time. I don't think it's true. I think the author of the blog is letting his particular interests and cherry-picked examples cloud his judgment.
If you look beyond the narrow sphere of technology and founders, you'll find many of humanity's greats had kids, or more broadly, family responsibilities, at some point. Their ability and involvement as parents varies widely, but this idea that kids are some kind of an inevitable death-knell for "being successful" or renowned whatever that means, isn't true.
An alternative lens would suggest that having kids reveals a lot about life that you can use in your other pursuits.
Your kids also eventually become adults, at which point the demands likely lower significantly.
Just like the "starving artist" myth, it's mostly baloney hyperbole that people promulgate because there's some obvious basic truth to it, but it isn't a law of the universe by any means.
We have one life and so much we want to do. This was me, now I have kids. Wake up, read news reply to email. Get kids ready for school. From drop off at school straight to work, from work straight to pickup the kids.
My working hours are 6-9 most days. Wish I had more hours in the day.
I don't know if I'm ambitious. I've worked my way to a high-paying tech job I enjoy. I'm not looking to found a startup or job-hop my way to a fancy title, and plan to stay here until I retire if I can. On the other hand, I put a lot of effort into my work, not because I'm angling for a promotion but because I like what I do and I want to do the best I can for the users.
Does that count as ambition? Doesn't really matter. The basic tension described here is strong, in any case, between work and family.
> Some figures in technology (Paul Graham, DHH, Jeff Dean, even Mark Zuckerberg) seem to be pushing on both fronts with rare success
Possibly true, but who knows. Especially Zuck, who does not lead a remotely ordinary life (imo).
Dad of 2 girls. 8 and 4. Maybe this should be titled “being ambitious because you’re a dad”
I am better than ever post kids. Always great, no. Always amazing, no. Not sure I agree with the post otherwise, especially quality vs quantity. High quality interactions are the best.
Focus on your kids, your health, and your work? It seems like a very tall order.
You've studied many notable builders, but have you studied the great dads? How much time does one have to spend to be a great dad? Do they get to pick the times when they can spend their focus on being dad, or do they have to be present at times they'd rather be doing other things? I think being a great dad might involve a lot of taking your children to sports practice, music lessons, play dates, libraries, and tons of other activities until you discover what clicks with them, and then there's many years of supporting those interests. I don't think you can just put it on pause during the week. To be a great and present dad, I think you can only count on being able to spend maybe 55 to 60 hours a week on work (with a lot of that being after bedtime and/or starting very early).
Looking at the great builders, I think the common element is that they picked the right thing to work on at the right time, in the right place, executed better than their peers, and also had a ton of luck.
* Zuckerberg was in the right place at the right time with ample luck and he chose to drop out of Harvard to spend a few years doing the hardcore startup house thing working exclusively on building Facebook, and nine years later he had his first kid. Right place, right time, strong execution, and much luck.
* Bill Gates was in the right place (a high school where he got extensive access to a mainframe computer, then in a local company that gave him and his friends unlimited computing time in exchange for them finding and fixing bugs) at the right time (when mainframe computers were an extremely rare and expensive thing and before operating systems existed) and he dropped out of Harvard to go all in on building Microsoft, then 21 years later he had his first kid. Right place, right time, right skills, great execution, and much luck.
* Paul Graham was in the right place (a Harvard CS Ph.D. who studied design at RISD living in NYC) at the right time (during the Internet 1.0 boom and before both the bust and before anyone else had brought a site building cloud application SAAS offering to the market), and he brought a great idea to market in time to sell it to Yahoo in 1998 for $49M of stock and he correctly elected to cash out his stock before the bubble burst in March 2000. And then he leveraged his great technical and business faculties to identify and develop great business ideas via YCombinator (2005-present). Then he had his first kid in 2009). Right place, right time, right skills, great execution of a novel great idea, and much luck.
* John Carmack is probably the platonic ideal of focusing and getting things done. His work ethic and habits are legendary (8 hours of sleep a night, 10 hours of focused work a day, and 60 hours of work a week) as is his output (Doom, Commander Keen, Wolfenstein 3D, Quake). In 1978 he discovered video games and in 1982 (at age 12), his family bought an Apple II computer and he quickly learned BASIC to start making games before digging deeper to learn assembly code. He gained deep and extensive knowledge of how computers work, motivated by his drive to make games, and this enabled him to make the limited PC hardware of the time do things comparable to purpose-built arcade machines. He came up at the right time, had sufficient interest, drive, and vision that motivated him to deeply explore and master computing as well as design and develop many iconic games of the 1990s. Then in 2004 he had his first kid, at which point he started working less, although still a 50+ hour per week workload. Luckily his children are interested in programming, which makes it easier for him to get quality time in. Still, right time, great skills, great ideas, much luck.
* etc.
Having a child already, you might be a bit constrained. But if you can manage getting into the right place to seize upon a great and novel idea that you are uniquely positioned to execute on, you might be able to build the idea out while the market and need is unserved.
Another potential strategy is to work on an established business model that someone else came up with, and spend your evenings and weekends with your children. The best dad I knew growing up did this (he was/is a database administrator and was the dad of three of my friends I knew through my boy scout troop who have all grown up to do incredible things and also be deeply happy people) and is still one of the coolest, most interesting and well-rounded people I've ever met.
In 100 years nobody will know who you were. In 200 years, only a few hundred people will be remembered from today. So what is the goal of your ambition? Is it the self-satisfaction? Temporary bragging rights that will be soon forgotten? Whatever wealth you accumulate, you can't take it with you. The pharoahs already trie this. It doesn't work.
Nobody's going to give a shit that you founded an AI company and sold it to Meta for $600 million. Sure you can enjoy the material benefits while you're here. Maybe you can even pass some of that onto your children.
The Good Place was one of the best TV shows of the best shows of the last decade (IMHO) and it brought up a relatively recent (1998) book "What we owe to each other". It makes the point that it's not a question (ie "what do we owe to each other?"). You're only meaningful impact is on the people you affect around you, positively or negatively.
Personally, I have no opinion on whether people should or shouldn't have children. That's none of my business other than this: you have to make a choice between having and raising those children and chasing material "ambitions". Bringing people into the world without their consent and then neglecting them makes you an objectively terrible person. Pick a lane.
And if you do choose ambition instead, at least ask yourself why. Studies have been done on this. Money does buy happiness but only to a very limited point. Beyond that it's isolating. So why are you doing whatever it is you're ambitious about, really?
Materialist ambition is not the exclusive worthwhile option besides raising children, for how to spend a life
Jesus. I couldn't imagine being a YC startup bro with kids.
If you can’t have a career and a family you may be in a death cult.