Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- 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.by Xcelerate
- 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).by funnygiraffe
- The way I think of it is: my family comes first and work and whatever is second, third and so on. I have no ambitions of running a company (the horror) or even being in charge of anything - it takes a special type of person to do that, and I am 100% not that guy. My goal is to always be employable - so I can always provide a middle class existence for my family. Anything beyond that is of no interest to me. Having a successful career used to be a thing to aspire to, but since I hit 40 I stopped caring about that. I used to learn a lot, but with AI I see little value in adding knowledge to my repertoaire - I would rather read a good book or fool around with my kids or go for a walk with my wife. Work isn't going anywhere, but family time is definitely a finite resource that's slipping away every second.
I will leave the world-changing to someone else who is willing to lay it all on the line for an imaginary medal.
- 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."
by devalexwells - > "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.
by farfatched - "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.
by mholt - > 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/...
by luqtas - parents dont do shit to change the world for their childrenby brainzap
- "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.
by ip26 - 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.
by handedness - On my end, becoming a dad didn’t make me less ambitious, just more focused.
I was vp of engineering at a Series A startup when my kid was born. It was a challenging job, but one that felt increasingly devoid of any meaning for me (maybe also because I'd been there for 5 years). I was compensating by working on side-projects at night and on weekends. I even wrote a novel that took me 4 years to finish.
Then my son was born, and nights and weekends disappeared! Suddenly, all my non-father activity was dedicated to a job that was boring me more and more. So what did i do? I started a company, so I could decide what to work on during the day!. Basically, I took a side project and put it at the center of my working life. Now my days feel rewarding enough that when I disconnect, I can completely devote myself to my son and my wife and ignore everything else.
Of course, I don’t have side projects anymore. I barely even have hobbies: I completely stopped watching movies, which used to be the love of my life. I read books before bed and on the subway, and work out occasionally to stay sane. My life = my startup, my son, my wife. That’s pretty much it.
But I feel much more balanced than before, when I was always chasing something.
by megalomanu - I became an engineering manager when my daughter was 2. Way back in the old days before LLMs so I had to both code and manage. Completely burnt me out. I never fully got back into traditional tech career after I was laid off in '23.
I did start two businesses: One brick and mortar and one app. The brick and mortar has the biggest drain on family time since with the app I can grind at night and only miss out on sleep.
by xXSLAYERXx - Sorry if this offends anyone but why must we choose between having a great career and being a great parent. Why is it a zero-sum game? Want to be great at something neglect your children to do so. Want to be a great parent, fine you have a mediocre career. From the article you are ambitious about building things. Well guess what children are, the ultimate piece of clay from which you get a front row seat to mold.
If you are trying to compete with people who are kidless and constantly comparing your output to them, then yes, you are going to feel you are falling behind. But you need to stop and ask yourself, “what am I doing all this work for”? What is your goal? For me, having children changed my perspective on life. I am lucky to make enough money to live a good first world lifestyle and the rest is enjoying the moments life brings. I still have the motivation I had 20 years ago but that motivation has shifted from “building things for the wealthy” to building peace and happiness for myself and my family.
I no longer work a ton of hours, but my day is still full of conversations, walks, work-outs, bike rides ect… These things when done with family and friends bring me level of accomplishment that no product launch ever did. Also, I openly avoid the hustle-grind culture that seems to run rampant these days.
You seem to be on the correct path, just don’t fall into that trap that says you must be grinding 60+ hours a week in-order to be successful or happy. It will find you if you let it.
by ron_woods - Hear hear. Although being great at something and being a great parent do not have to be mutually exclusive.
You can work yourself to death with or without kids. You can also have a successful career and a great relationship with your family.
This whole premise that one must come at the expense of the other seems like rationalizing, or excuse-making, or maybe just another caustic result of capitalism.
And even if the drive to compete is so real, why stop at competing for either/or? Why not compete at being a whole person according to your own values?
To hell with anyone who says you can’t have the life you want. Win at being yourself.
by jmbwell - > why must we choose between having a great career and being a great parent
Because there is a limited number of hours in the day? That doesn't mean that one cannot do both at the same time, at times. It doesn't even mean that having kids can't also make you a better founder in some ways. But I think most people recognize that the large time demands of being a founder take away more from one's ability to build than they contribute (in terms of extra motivation or perspective).
by apparent - Sounds like you accept that the choice must be made, you've just accepted yours. And nothing wrong with that, of course.by wat10000
- > why must we choose between having a great career and being a great parent. Why is it a zero-sum game?
I had basically this exact conversation with a close family member, who sees having children as being forced to give up on her dreams of being a writer forever, which I just don't get (she's already written and released 4 novels which have made some decent money, just not enough to do it fulltime, and still has a day job in marketing that makes good money).
For a little while it will likely mean a shift in focus, sure, but that doesn't mean you have to give up on something forever. I've mostly taken a break from designing games the past couple of years (unrelated to children, just not as motivated lately, there's so many great board games out there already I'm trying to just enjoy playing them for a while), but I haven't totally given up on being a game designer (plus I've already released several games in the past, that can't be taken away from me, even if basically no one is still playing those games nowadays).
Plus children could also help enrich your life experience that lead to further inspiration for your creative efforts anyway, especially since it seems like the adult life experience society encourages nowadays seems to be sit in front of a computer all day for a day job, sit in front of a computer all evening for side hustle, get takeout, doomscroll/tv for a bit before going to sleep, repeat.
by cableshaft - > Why is it a zero-sum game?
Not to be flippant, but it's a zero-sum game because time is finite.
I think you know this too since the following paragraphs describe you making this tradeoff yourself.
by AlexandrB - Because energy is limited and TBH very few people are really fit for doing two jobs properly at the same time. Honestly, sometimes, or most of the times, a great career do demand more than 40 hours of work.
You also need very good mental for both jobs, too.
by markus_zhang - I used to think, wow progressing is so easy, why doesn't everyone just read a technical book, documentation or take a course after work.
I then had a child. The time is just gone. Having children is extremely time consuming. I have my own health issues, but now I am responsible for one more person. Morning routine takes 1 - 1.5 hours by the time my kid is dropped off at school. He hates getting up, so by the time I'm done I would love to crawl back into bed.
After school it is dinner time, we try to cook and eat healthy. After dinner it is bed time. If I have time to watch a show or just talk to my wife for an hour without being interrupted, I'm happy.
Having a child is great, but if you are committed and involved parent, there isn't much time or energy left to do anything but work and child.
by avgDev - The article is not talking about having "a great career" (which you can have while also having good balance and focusing on things).
To me, the article is more a lament. There is only so much time in this life, and if you're organized (I read that to mean intentional in your execution and not wasting time) then you apply that time to your highest priority.
Work / building things / personal hobbies / your partner / your family / your kids - these all compete. It's impossible to do everything you'd LOVE to do in your building and hobbies without burning the candle on both ends a bit with the other priorities.
You can do it for short periods, but eventually it catches up and you'll either do it all bad or sacrifice something.
Time is finite. Desire / drive are not. Solve for X. I feel what the author is saying every day, but I'm OK with it because there's no question in my mind that my kids and family are going to be the best use of my time and what I'm thinking about on my death bed.
Do I still sleep too little and occasionally overwork to execute? Yes - but you have to pick your spots.
You just can't do it ALL.
(And mind you - that's for me as an extremely involved, work-from-home, caring for children MAN. This is an entirely different equation if you're a female and you don't have support structure. Nobody can have it all but I've probably got the best shot at having a TON of it - but there are still trade-offs)
by sailfast - 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.
by xp84 - In some cases you CAN be tipped off about this, and even abort as a result depending on where you are!
Many people act like this is some sick thing to do. It's mercy.
by Der_Einzige - 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.
by Aeolun - 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.by funnygiraffe
- > 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.
by ColdStream - 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.
by zer00eyz - I felt successful before I had kids. Satisfying, upward-moving career; happy marriage; lots of travel; volunteering in multiple organizations. I liked all these things, succeeded in them, people liked me, etc.
As a dad, I feel like a total loser. All of the aforementioned are diminished or put entirely on hold (travel, most volunteering). I'm medicore at everything, except parenting, in which I am successful at keeping my kids alive and safe and healthy, but not in satisfying their desires. In that I am totally inadequate.
I expected that I would have to put "my" life largely on hold when we had kids and instead of the satisfaction I got from the pre-kid things, would enjoy the satisfaction of raising happy children. To have neither is demoralizing and I'm constantly looking for the critical thing that will improve the child-raising experience. And no, waiting it out for the kids to grow up is not the answer!
by psim1 - kids are rough before.... 3y. especially in the "wriggling sacks of flesh" stage. you look at this larva and youre like 'wtf did i get myself into?'
Once they start doing extracurriculars, and learning skills, and developing talents, then something starts to click. for me at least.
things got REALLY fun when they started to also enjoy things i liked.
by superxpro12