Hacker News Reader

Comment by around_here | Hacker News Reader

Yea, that's not always how it works. There are a lot of things that factor in to what happens with kids, including the age of a person when the kid happens. It's also not something you can go back on, or just ditch.

And people with kids deserve to comment that they don't have that time because if everyone used the 20 something single white male with no kids, no responsibilities, and minimal routine for anything but work, sleep, and a free 8 hours a day, human society would collapse in to a even bigger cesspool of poverty.

Having children is necessary, and important, for our society. It should be fully supported. Not the subject of derision by people with your attitude.

View on HN

> It should be fully supported.

It is fully supported – with tax breaks, and taxpayer-funded education, and paid maternity leave, all of which childless people subsidise but don't benefit from.

It's also still your choice to have kids.

I don't think that is what is meant. The comment isn't about financial support. It's about poor, disparaging attitude to people who choose to have kids. As though it's a fault.

Nobody complained of little time because of kids. But that assumption was made. It's insulting to suggest I somehow regret having kids due to little time when those kids have become my reason for being. The suggestion I regret my kids for want of hobby time is on one of the biggest insults anyone could make.

That's not to say I believe the comment was malicious or even intended to insult. It's very difficult to understand the huge upheaval in priorities that take over by instinct when you have children unless you've made the decision yourself. For some, it's understandbly too big a sacrifice and that's ok! It is, as you say, a choice.

As an aside, I don't think it's right to boil everything down to financial terms and incentives. If I thought that way, I wouldn't have had one child let alone three. They cost a lot of bloody money.

It's absolutely about financial support as well as everything else. If everyone thought about it in a purely financial way, you'd be forced to have children.

Tax breaks are minimal. Everyone should have a right to an excellent publicly funded education system (and they generally do, not just the childless), and paid maternity leave is absolutely necessary.

And you're clearly unaware of how much of a gross oversimplification it being a "choice" is.

I would argue that having children stems from an innate, selfish desire of people's genetics to propagate themselves, and has nothing to do with benefitting society. Is it even clear that children benefit society? Is it an overall good thing to continue to propagate our society?

My attitude is not derisive towards parents. I had parents myself, and I respect their choices. My objection is that parents seem to want to have their cake and eat it too, and then don't acknowledge the significant societal subsidies already in place.

If you had kids, it will be harder to start a side business. That was a trade off the parent chose to make. I choose to have more free time and opportunity.

There is hardly anything significant about the current subsidies in place, especially with respect to the other subsidies that exist already. Tech is one of the biggest recipients of subsidies as it is.

It's already fully supported and encouraged by government and by religion, even when it doesn't make sense.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com