Dear founders: Children are not a distraction, they are motivation

http://zaman.io/dear-founders-children-are-not-a-distraction-they-are-motivation/

by tzaman • 12 years ago

183 186 12 years ago

Totally relate. My two year old son actually prevents me from burning out. Everyday, when I get home, my wife says "your turn!" and I transform into Daddy. We play soccer, we play music, we play, I bathe him, I feed him, I tuck him in.

Code? What cod... wait, right, I'm a developer. Gosh, that problem I'm stuck at is really diffic... Wait, I got it! I know what way to go now and try to solve that.

Thanks, son!

Tyrant505• 12 years ago

Great comment that should be obvious but is often "forgotten." Tunnel vision will lead you to tunnels and not vast, mighty oceans.

je423• 12 years ago

Yep. Forced breaks can be annoying, but to reach the "water" you sometimes have to wait for the tide.

dasil0032• 12 years ago

What having a daughter (almost 5) taught me is how to time box. To some extent you can hack it with pomodoro technique or other mental tricks, but there's nothing like a hard out to keep efficiency at the front of mind. I do now in 8 hours what I used to do in 12 because I figured I had all night.

hayksaakian• 12 years ago

"think of the children" works for a reason

dromidas• 12 years ago

Hitler used it to great effect... was actually one of his primary tools.

vezzy-fnord2• 12 years ago

Hitler also ate food.

Children's interests is a very tired and aggravating rhetorical tool, certainly, but putting a reductio ad Hitlerum into everything isn't doing anything but showing your lack of imagination or your ideological stubbornness.

sz4kerto• 12 years ago

Yeah, I thought the joy over kids is sometimes just a self-delusion or a way of resolve cognitive dissonance (as a lot of time is 'lost'). Obviously I can't prove what I'm saying, but 1) it's an infinite source of happiness and joy 2) my wife can actually work much more efficiently since she takes care of her, as somehow she's not that distracted in her (less) 'free time'.

mattgreenrocks2• 12 years ago

Don't forget #3: careerism's benefits are vastly overstated in culture because that's what Western society fixates on. Reading LinkedIn's 'influencer' articles makes me want to vomit: yet another treatise on why I'm not working hard enough to get the precious corner office or that promotion. (Who writes this crap?)

As I get older I get wiser, and I'm not so stupidly entertained by the occasional trinkets thrown to me by my career. Everything works better when it's in it's proper place -- balanced. It took several years of imbalance, lots of misplaced ambition, and a severe burnout to realize this. I don't expect that I would have figured it out until I experienced it firsthand.

It's just a job. It doesn't define you, and you don't have to make a difference to be a worthwhile person.

dasil0032• 12 years ago

Also one of the benefits of being a programmer is that "working smarter, not harder" is really a thing. If you're blessed with the curiosity and tenacity that being a programmer requires, then reflecting and improving your craft can make outsize returns far more than simply grinding yourself down to a nubbin (which for some jobs in some places is the only way to survive).

spoiledtechie• 12 years ago

Totally agree with the Op. I work hard for my kids. Its not about me anymore. Its about a better life for our family now.

nsxwolf2• 12 years ago

And this is a horrifying thought for a 20-something with no kids and what they perceive as limitless freedom, opportunity, and immortality.

Having a family and shifting into an "it's not about me anymore" frame of mind probably sounds worse than death to them. I know it would have at one point in my life.

pbharrin• 12 years ago

Awesome. A great professor said the best grad students were the married ones because they knew how to manage time. I believe the same is true for founders with kids.

solve2• 12 years ago

I know this because I used to be that person, until I met my wife who showed me there's more to life than getting drunk every weekend.

There's an overpowering tendency to solve for a perfect "steady state" solution to optimizing one's behavior. You see this tendency in nutrition, psychology, everywhere in relation to biological things.

It's dead wrong.

Sometimes "cycling" between states is the optimal approach, not steady-state do one thing, eat one thing, etc. Variety can help you more consistently reach your goals. Forcing yourself to totally unwind can allow you to focus more intensely for much longer without burning out. I quite dislike this myth that you have to be boring to be successful.

tzaman• 12 years ago

Agreed, maybe I didn't express it right, I don't perceive myself as boring in any way, drinking got replaced by skydiving haha :)

solve2• 12 years ago

Nice. That'll do it.

akerl_4• 12 years ago

Why do we need this to be a hard line? Putting "having kids kills startups" on one side and "parents are the best founders" on the other seems to be at best an oversimplification and at worst outright detrimental to both groups. I'm pretty sure most everybody here knows somebody who got motivated after having kids (or any other major life event), as well as somebody who became less motivated in their own career after such an event.

I get that putting everybody into cute little boxes with solid walls separating them from the other groups makes things easier on our brains, but we'd probably be a lot better off if we tried to imagine others complexly, because that's the reality.

phillmv3• 12 years ago

Well, because right now as it stands the default is to be hostile to people with kids. And frankly, if our business culture needs to exploit childless 20 year olds then we're building a toxic, unsustainable environment.

akerl_4• 12 years ago

I agree. But we aren't going to fix that by claiming the opposite case as fact. Culture isn't something that you can average: 2 polarized viewpoints do not balance each other out, they just lead to HN comment wars and accusations of bias by both "sides".

x0x02• 12 years ago

Yeah, but here's the other side of the coin: I've worked with parents (and shared a boss) who always dumped shitwork off onto the people w/o kids. Last second travel to customers, late nights, bugs that trigger support SLA requirements, emergency fixes, etc. And then, amazingly enough, proceed to whine that they don't get the same raises or promotions.

I agree our work environment is hostile to people's personal lives, but when parents use their kids as an excuse to get out of doing their share, instead of advocating for better work life balance for everyone, the reaction of the childless should be completely unsurprising.

ryguytilidie• 12 years ago

Especially when its always the people without kids in group 1 and the people with kids in group 2.

kashkhan2• 12 years ago

If you do a startup while having a family, you are either desperate (can't get a decent job) or truly motivated by your idea (in the way true believers are and don't get a job by choice).

robgering3• 12 years ago

A false dichotomy. Plenty of people with both families and decent jobs choose to start successful, sustainable, and profitable businesses each year. Some of these people are "true believers" in their ideas, and some have other motivators, like potential profits. Not all startups are an all-or-nothing proposition. Nor should they be.

PeterisP4• 12 years ago

Pretty much all new businesses, no matter if they're tech startups or corner stores, have 80+% chance of failing within their first year. You don't get to choose to start a profitable business - you can put your best effort to try and make it so, but even that is just a gamble.

If your family can afford the income hit during a failed company without the kids suffering - that's great. But if it can't, but you simply believe that it will be successful - then that's just lying to them and yourself.

VaedaStrike4• 12 years ago

The source of the desperation, I believe, is not correctly presumed by yourself. But the combination of both is possible. And I believe a force to be reckoned with.

kjs34• 12 years ago

Even if some dudebro can't understand how positive having a kid is for your life, they do understand when I tell them about coming home, looking at your child, and saying to yourself "I can not fail, that is why, and I will do everything in my power not to". Having something to motivate you that way is universal.

biesnecker• 12 years ago

Absolutely. My (2) kids definitely require my attention and devotion, but in terms of "getting me focused on the important stuff," they are miracle workers.

Having a supportive spouse is an amazing boon, too, and one that should not be overlooked in this discussion.

toast76• 12 years ago

Couldn't agree more. I've often been asked by other founders whether running a startup w/kids is possible. It's hard, but not for the reasons most people without kids would think.

I moved interstate for 3 months to take part in an accelerator, and had to drag my son and pregnant wife with me. That was hard (mostly on them!)

When I was pitching for investment in the US (we're Aussies) and missed my sons 2nd birthday, it nearly broke me in two.

When I went to the US to participate in 500 Startups, 6 weeks after my wife had given birth to our daughter. That was incredibly hard...for everybody.

12 months ago when I didn't take a paycheck for a month, knowing I was failing my family, that was the hardest.

Right now I'm in Sydney, away from my wife and kids, I will miss my Son's karate grading... and I feel like a terrible father for doing so.

But here's the thing. All these things are hard, and I do them because they have to be done. Not because "it might be fun" or "just to see what happens", but because these things will lead us to success.

The bar for what constitutes a worthwhile activity is raised so much higher when you have a family to support. You learn to be more critical on evaluating opportunities, and you only jump when you need to jump. It doesn't cripple you, it forces you to focus on things that move the dial.

j_s• 12 years ago

The bar for what constitutes a worthwhile activity is raised so much higher when you have a family to support.

That should be sentence #1.

je423• 12 years ago

Yep! I was away for 2 times 2 1/2 months from my wife and kids in 6 month period. I was constantly evaluating if this was still worth it.

celticninja2• 12 years ago

not just support, but for it to be an alternative to actually spending time with your wife and kids, which is finite and valuable.

robgering3• 12 years ago

I have several kids. I spend a lot of time with them, regularly, and this is non-negotiable, according to the personal philosophies I hold. It's also more enjoyable than time spent doing really anything else. Ostensibly, I have less time for coding or other activities involved with building a business.

However, having children has increased my motivation and productivity. It's as if limiting available time increases the quantity of available focus. I am also significantly more disciplined than I was as a childless bachelor. I taught myself to code after having my first child.

A tip for new parents: if you can, get up early rather than staying up late to work on your personal projects. This has two advantages: 1) your best effort will be given to your own projects; and 2) you won't be looking forward to getting away from your family to do work after hours.

I'm not making the argument that any person will be more productive with kids. Just retelling my experience.

guard-of-terra3• 12 years ago

It seems to a childless me that today society forces you to spend unrealistic amount of time on children.

Looking after them, hauling them around, catering to their needs. If you don't do that you are suspicious and may even become a criminal: How dare you leave your 10yo kid alone and let her use internets unsupervised?

I'm not sure I want that. It wasn't like that when I was a kid, I came from school on foot, boiled some food, made homework while parents were busy making money, even helped them with that a bit. Now it's supposed to be one way street.

If society want everybody to have children they should whoa whoa take it easy.

jordan0day• 12 years ago

Even if you hadn't pointed out that you didn't have children, the rest of your comment made it plain.

Society doesn't force you to spend an "unrealistic amount of time on children", if anything, it's the opposite, forcing you to spend too much time away from them.

There's nothing wrong with making sure your children are independent and can do things on their own, and by the age of 10 I'd expect them to be capable of quite a bit of independence. However, even at that age, they're still aggregating enormous of new information about the world, daily. You should around to help guide them, teach them, or just be a sounding board for them to bounce ideas off of.

You seem to be confusing normal child rearing with the "helicopter parent" meme.

You should especially re-read your own sentence: "Looking after them, hauling them around, catering to their needs. If you don't do that you are suspicious and may even become a criminal"

catering to their needs. Well I certainly hope if you have children you'd be willing to meet their needs!

guard-of-terra3• 12 years ago

As a kid I was able to cover enough of my needs during the day to be home alone.

Of course people who don't have children yet are prone to confusion and I'm not the only person alienated by this.

tlear3• 12 years ago

Children actually have quite basic needs. Helicopter over protective parents are meme but also a reality as well. One of my friends spent 2k on a stroller.. another has 4 strollers.. another bought a 35k car because his current 4 year old Civic was not comfortable enough for his one kid (he has no savings)

Children require you to feed, them have roof over their head, have clothing and teach them stuff by example. They do not require you to follow them around 24/7 making sure they don't get hurt or come into contact with outside world.

When we had our kid I was really afraid that somehow I will turn into one of those crazy friends I have. It did not happen.. keeping wife from going there is taking some effort though.

oalders• 12 years ago

I don't think society wants everyone to have children. That would be a terrible idea. If it's not something you want to do then you absolutely shouldn't do it. You should reserve the right to change your mind, though. ;)

And yes, if you don't have kids of your own, the time spent on them seems kind of insane. After you have them, it still seems like a lot of time, but most people would tell you it's worth it.

FD3SA4• 12 years ago

It's astounding that we have come so far that this needs to be defended. Throughout history, civilizations which held the nuclear family as their most important asset have absolutely dominated the world. This is due to simple evolutionary forces, which for K-selected species, favor fewer offspring which have much longer weaning periods. As a result, parents who invested more in providing their offspring with education and sustenance did substantially better as a society than their competitors.

It is quite ironic that the vast wealth accumulated by the western world, which was built upon the nuclear family as its foundation, has now allowed the next generation such freedom that they can dally as singles for significant portions of their lives. That being said, singles are very productive in short bursts, but these are unstable and fuelled by emotional insecurity which, as mentioned in the article, inevitably lead to burnout.

Society will inevitably return to its nuclear family origins, as the fun loving singles will not provide offspring in quality and quantity to compete with these traditional families.

Moral of the story: don't be so quick to condemn the old ways of family life. They have survived for millenia, and will continue to do so long after we're gone.

Crito3• 12 years ago

It might surprise you to hear that there are single people who have children. Furthermore, there are plenty of people who are not single and no not have or want children.

Due to advances in human rights and standard of living, having or not having children is now decoupled from being or not being single. A reversal of this would be a major regression in society.

rthomas62• 12 years ago

How do you think the average quality of upbringing with a single parent compares to average quality of upbringing with two parents?

humanrebar10• 12 years ago

Due to advances in human rights and standard of living, having or not having children is now decoupled from being or not being single.

But standard of living is not decoupled from being single or not, especially when kids are in the picture.

PeterisP4• 12 years ago

Even more, the classic concept of married couples having kids is now in the minority.

At least for me, local statistics show that the majority of children are born to unmarried parents; and only ~65% of school-age children are raised by both parents. So it's not even a case for exceptions, but a socially accepted, very common phenomenon.

nsmnsf• 12 years ago

Why do you seem to have the idea that "no kids" implies "single"?

mullingitover2• 12 years ago

It is quite ironic that the vast wealth accumulated by the western world, which was built upon the nuclear family as its foundation, has now allowed the next generation such freedom that they can dally as singles for significant portion of their lives.

Freedom? More like not being able to afford the expenses of having a family.

I'm 36 and make above the average income for a person in Los Angeles, but I can't afford a house and can't fathom trying to raise a family on my income. It would basically be a choice between having children or having a retirement. If this is freedom, I hope I don't get any more liberated than I already am.

cylinder• 12 years ago

How did this rule come about, that you need to own a house before you can have a child?

brianbarker2• 12 years ago

At least you responsibly considered this. Having a family is a big deal in Utah, and we have too many people who just go for it in their early 20s, no college, no career path. It doesn't end well. I'm not anti-family, but I resent the attitude here that it's something you have to do, or even some sort of god-given right. Families should be well-planned. Quality over quantity of life.

Just my thoughts. Idk.

null_ptr• 12 years ago

Wouldn't your theoretical spouse have an income too?

nthj3• 12 years ago

I'm 36 and make above the average income for a person in Los Angeles

Location, location, location. My dad moved his family to a place he could afford so he could take care of them.

I could make the same salary in San Francisco that I make in Austin, TX, but the same salary goes a /lot/ farther in Texas than it does in California.

gscott2• 12 years ago

Children are not too expensive as long as they don't go to a private school. I am 39 my kids are 17 and 18 now. I have never made more than $55,000 (one income family). The kids are about off to college.

NextUserName2• 12 years ago

Perhaps you should move then. You are free to do that after all.

Move or learn to live frugally. Many people cannot afford a house/family until they get married and combine incomes.

chc• 12 years ago

Describing the traditional Chinese or Roman family structure as "the nuclear family" really seems to be stretching things. From all I have read, they were very little like the 1950s ideal that the phrase evokes. I haven't done a complicated study or anything, but if I were to guess, just from reading about various cultures throughout history, I would figure that clannish extended families were more successful historically than the "two adults form a unit, have N kids and raise them until they leave to find mates and then goto 1" model of the nuclear family. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

jquery• 12 years ago

Indeed, the modern Western "nuclear family" is quite the oddity, historically, with clan-like arrangements dominating history. There are a number of downsides to the modern nuclear family, including inability to spread risk sufficiently, familial alienation, and strong dependency on a single romantic coupling.

The nuclear family is a massive undertaking of concentrated risk that few are properly equipped to deal with. As society continues to globalize, it provides fewer benefits over its alternatives. Visit any nursing home with its abandoned elders to see the fruits of the nuclear family. Is it truly a sustainable model for the future?

_zen• 12 years ago

Nuclear family is a rather right-wing, conservative word. Its followers do not usually support gay families, for example. Did you mean to use that term?

I can tell you for certain we are NOT heading back that way. Society will only become more acceptable to alternative families.

vezzy-fnord2• 12 years ago

The word itself isn't right-wing or conservative in any way, it simply describes a particular family structure.

Followers of nuclear family as the center of society are called familialists, typically. Yes, they tend to be conservatives.

mrow84• 12 years ago

To question a different part of your argument to other commenters: I am very much under the impression that the nuclear family is a fairly unusual mode of societal organisation, historically speaking, because it doesn't provide enough security to protect one's small family from the unpredictability of life. Instead most cultures have, when unable to provide large scale welfare programmes, adopted a range of other measures for spreading risk throughout kinship and other groups, such as extended families, where success and failure is spread across family members.

edit: I should have also mentioned that I firmly support the greater social freedom, such as the ability to choose the nature of one's family, afforded by our more integrated and (in my view) enlightened states.

danford• 12 years ago

What evidence is there that the nuclear family is some sort of evolutionary trait? If anything it's a cultural/religious thing. I believe what would be our "natural" tendency would be for one male to mate with multiple females and impregnate them as often as possible. There is no evidence that "Traditional family values" are the key to a successful economy. The term "nuclear family" is also something that came right around the time of the second world war, an anyone who has taken American History can tell you that the reason our economy thrived in that time was because of the war effort. We also had an extraordinary amount of optimism because at the time we were almost un-arguably the most powerful country in the world.

deeviant2• 12 years ago

The insinuations that:

A) People that don't have kids are single B) Being single for extended amounts of time leads to some sort of emotional insecurity and "inevitable" burn out

Are, frankly, far more insulting to me than the totally mathematically sound thesis that somebody with 4 kids may have less time in their life for other things, like work.

As for myself, I'm soon to be married, with no plans for kids in the future.

zeteo2• 12 years ago

civilizations which held the nuclear family as their most important asset have absolutely dominated the world

I'm not aware of any civilization that "held the nuclear family as their most important asset" (whatever that means). Ancient Greek literature does not wax poetic about the paramount importance of the nuclear family, neither does Renaissance Florence. Confucian ancestor worship is the only system of ethics that comes close to that (and it's about the extended family) - but I doubt that's what you meant.

simple evolutionary forces, which for K-selected species [...]

Anyone who threw even a cursory glance at the Lotka-Volterra equations [1] would not talk of evolutionary forces as being "simple".

singles are very productive in short bursts, but these are unstable

And yet some of the most creative / productive people in history did not also create nuclear families (Michelangelo, Kant, Turing etc.).

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka%E2%80%93Volterra_equation

VaedaStrike4• 12 years ago

Ancient Greece did not genetically survive. We have remnants of their culture NOT by virtue of their genetic fitness nor the continuance of their civilization, merely because we discovered their artifacts and the people whom they enslaved had children who fancy themselves as the children of the masters of their ancestors. Don't be fooled, Ancient Greece's failure to mention the importance of the nuclear family should be evidence as to what happens to cultures that lay aside such. Namely they are wiped out and their heritage is merely whatever is picked up by those near by after their society dies and goes through the throughs of civil and social collapse. The fact that Florence had a Renaissance to go through, thanks to discoveries of artifacts of the long dead Greeks and Romans.

And as per some of the most 'creative'/'productive' people being single presumes that their accomplishments sprung out of their heads like Athena. None of them would have the very culture they played off of that enabled their greatness without the existence of nuclear families.

tedks• 12 years ago

Moral of the story: don't be so quick to condemn the old ways of family life. They have survived for millenia, and will continue to do so long after we're gone.

Humans existed for tens of thousands of years without doing anything interesting. Humans did lots of things then. Most of them haven't survived into modernity; if you want an idea of what humans used to do before agriculture, there are still some cultures existing now that exist at that stage.

The wealth of the West was maybe built on nuclear families; it was also built on colonialism, slavery, white supremacy, patriarchy, and corporatism. Plenty of things have existed in the brief infancy of humanity. Very few of them are worth taking with us into the future.

Starting a family is sometimes the right thing to do. Remaining free of children is also sometimes the right thing to do, just like it's sometimes right to stay single and sometimes right to have a partner, or more than one partner.

Whatever you do, be intentional and do it because it's the right thing for you to do in your life, not because of any societal diktat or because of pressure from other people.

humanrebar10• 12 years ago

Whatever you do, be intentional and do it because it's the right thing for you to do in your life

I'm not going to morally judge someone for benign lifestyle decisions, but it's baldly not true that someone can just live whatever life one wants without affecting the people around them.

Keeping your kids out of school, verbal abuse, avoiding vaccinations, trapping people into relationships with pregnancies, running out on child support, substance abuse during pregnancy, unprotected sex with strangers ... there are clearly things that are intentional and (ignorantly) someone's right to do. And they are clearly the wrong thing to do, for the individuals involved and for society at large.

I realize that you probably didn't mean to include all those decisions as valid in your sweeping case for non-judgemental social norms, but the fact is that norms are incredibly important because, especially when it comes to family, decisions do affect other people. If we can agree that some norms are important, the only discussion is about which are important, why, and how much.

I'll go one further and defend social diktat since it's probably not something most people consider. Given that norms are important, I'd rather people enforce these norms outside of the laws. The norm used to be that gay sex was a bad idea. People were (and are) thrown into prison and legally executed because people decided to turn social norms into laws. Since norms are greatly affected by technology and culture, keeping enforcement confined to social pressure provides a level of protection to people who decide to try something outside-the-box.

PeterisP4• 12 years ago

The "old ways of family life" are NOT nuclear family, and are incompatible with that concept. Throughout history, most civilizations have lived and raised their children in extended families (or other community/group arrangements), not nuclear families. The switch from extended family to nuclear family become viable only during/after industrial revolution.

A separate couple rising their kids is not 'traditional family' - a traditional family would delegate significant parts of the childcare effort away from the young adults/parents, so they'd focus on their work; a nuclear family doesn't do that.

NextUserName2• 12 years ago

Society will inevitably return to its nuclear family origins, as the fun loving singles will not provide offspring in quality and quantity to compete with these traditional families.

On two conditions only. Much of our false wealth must be shed (which will happen within the next 10-20 years) and we must stop enabling/encouraging non-nuclear family population growth. There has to be real consequences to fatherless children and women with 5 kids from 5 daddies. Now we just give unwed mothers money, free stuff and moral permission to do it again and again.

Einstalbert• 12 years ago

Founders are, more often than not and perhaps even as-written, passionate people. People who have drive, focus, and a vision. For some people, their drive comes from their families. For others, it doesn't. All I am seeing in this thread is parents speaking up about how their children are their drive. That's really cool, but to also turn around and state that people without families walk an inevitable path to burnout is ridiculous to me. This thread is little more than an echo chamber.

darklajid4• 12 years ago

My take: I got two kids, one's not yet 1.5 years old, the other one is a month old.

It's hard. I have tremendous respect for my wife, because - she's the one spending the most time with the kids. That said: I do work from home and this DOES influence my ability to work.

I wouldn't want to miss them. They are great. I agree with the OP that they help you in some ways (keeping a schedule, logistics, making sure that you're not slacking off during the day and getting into a frenzy mode at night).

But they have a (cough) cost. I'm looking left and right for a job that would make me happier. I usually don't even dare to send an application (because hey, could I actually take it? I mean.. probation time etc. even if they'd take me in) and if I do I usually know that I won't risk it either.

The big risk is not productivity. That can be avoided and a decent structure (support in your family, a good understanding with your SO) solves most of the standard "But aren't kids dragging you down?" issues.

But flexibility is truly lost, unless you have lots of savings or your SO earns enough money (BZZZZT). At this point in time I'm absolutely certain that I'll never start a company of my own (okay, okay, let's be honest: The kids are not to blame for most of the issues: I don't even have a decent idea. I'm saying: I wouldn't, even with the perfect pitch) and I'm even reasonably sure that I'll stick with my current company for a loooong time.

For safety, family. I just cannot experiment anymore.

celticninja2• 12 years ago

i am just about to change my career, i have 3 kids under 4. it is a huge risk, but the potential reward is also huge. why am i doing it? well the pay off would be a much better life for my family than is currently possible. i am giving up promotion and stability for a sideways move and retraining. the fact i have kids is what is driving me to experiment rather than seek safety.

darklajid4• 12 years ago

I wish you all the best.

I don't think I could muster the courage to do just that. Maybe your situation is different (here, we got just one income: Mine. No savings account or any property) or maybe you're just braver than me.

Again, I wish you all the best with your change of career, I just cannot imagine doing that myself.

humanrebar10• 12 years ago

This isn't a problem that good savings can't solve. If it's too hard to come up with savings, the cost of having a family of three is probably too high.

I'm not denigrating families of three, I'm criticizing the way current costs and benefits of Western governments make it too expensive for responsible people to have decent-sized families.

tlear3• 12 years ago

My bet is that you probably have a huge mortgage to pay and little savings. That is what is killing you.

I have a kid, however we also have no mortgage, no cars(live in a centre of a city) and can save quite a bit per month.

I think stable is dangerous, being dependent on employment from someone is terrible. Basically I live with assumption that I might need to look for a new gig next week. So keep my network maintained, my skill continuously sharpened etc. Do not fear losing job embrace it!

darklajid4• 12 years ago

Good bet, but wrong. I don't own a thing, I'm renting an apartment. Single income, wife's never started (due to the kids, plans to start Real Soon Now™).

I don't fear losing my job. Without bragging: I'm reasonably sure that I'm among the best developers the company has, easily. My life's even quite relaxed, due to my (earned) status. It's just boring. And sometimes annoying.

So I'm not afraid of losing my job. That is totally possible, but imo quite unlikely at this point. I'm just afraid of actively looking for a 'fun job'.

eevilspock• 12 years ago

children also counteract the narcissism and lack of perspective that plagues the get-rich-quick any way you can startup world.

l33tbro• 12 years ago

Children aren't the issue - partners are.

Yes, you'll be inspired to provide for your family being in start-up mode. It probably will push you harder than if you weren't nested. But, convetionally, your partner will encourage you to engage in much more stable financial endeavours (ie, anything but start-ups).

As they should too. Why? Because, let's face it; most people's ideas are pretty shitty. That's not a secret around here ... so let's put that out there. As we know, even if you do have a super great idea, there is so much luck required to break through.

I don't mean to sound grinchy on a Ycombinator forum, but let's just address the reality here. The times we live in is where The Social Network has become like a founding myth of a 21st century goldrush. People are over educated and bored with job-jobs, so wishful thinking pushes them into developing their genius apps and half-baked Facebook killers.

I don't want to discourage people from being creative and innovative, but I think all of this has to be considered in this discussion of raising a family and doing something extremely financially risky like a startup.

rayiner3• 12 years ago

Children aren't the issue - partners are.

It depends on your specific situation. Kids will generally make you more risk averse, but working partners will make you less risk averse. The founder at the startup where I worked (who had three kids at the time), was able to bootstrap because his wife's job was enough to pay the mortgage and health insurance.

I personally feel a lot more empowered to make risky career moves because my wife could support the family by herself if need be.

drawkbox• 12 years ago

Kids are magical motivators and when you have one you become a much more aware person of others needs. I think this helps in every aspect of life.

Most of the product shippers I know have kids, you also have to put up with less single person life troubles at work (you think hearing about people's kids is annoying...).

When you have a kid the focus is immediately off yourself and on the work to make that kid smile as much as possible and have a happy life. I have also found that married programmers seem to stick around longer and are less flaky because they have to be.

People that think kids are a distraction probably don't have them.

aantix• 12 years ago

I think there's a lot of money to be made adopting the Y-Combinator model but betting on startups with those with families.

adventured• 12 years ago

Actually, whether children are a distraction or a motivation varies from one person to the other. There is no right answer that covers everybody.

Children would be a distraction to me right now. I know myself better than anybody else knows me, and I'm the only one that can rationally judge this for me.

Over the prior 15 years, I couldn't have lived the way I chose to, or made the business/life decisions I did, while being responsible, if I had had children. That included being so strapped I could barely feed myself, much less children. It would have been wildly ignorant to have had a child at that point.

avalaunch• 12 years ago

I've posted this before but it seems relevant here to highlight the prejudice that people with families will sometimes face.

Ripped directly from a rejection letter I received:

"I think instead of making a more detailed offer, I should consider certain facts.

For starters, you have a family and that'll be the driving force behind all your decisions. Secondly, you will not be able to be here in the program with me. Ideally, I want someone who could be here though not necessary. More importantly, it's the family situation I consider. I've worked developers before with family and the company died largely because of that. I don't want to say that'll happen but I worry.

This other candidate is like me. No responsibilities except {COMPANY NAME}. That makes life less complicated. Based on this - nothing to do with skills - it's best that him and I work together. "

The program was one of the startup accelerators (not YC). He was right that my family would have been the driving force behind all my decisions. He was wrong in thinking that's a bad thing. I can't imagine a bigger motivator than my family. When you have kids, failure just isn't an option.

analog313• 12 years ago

>> This other candidate is like me.

'Nuff said.

>> No responsibilities except {COMPANY NAME}. That makes life less complicated. Based on this - nothing to do with skills - it's best that him and I work together.

Skills include management skills such as working with people who are not all alike.

You dodged a bullet.

robrenaud• 12 years ago

When you have kids, failure just isn't an option.

Then it seems that startups are a pretty bad choice for parents, given their inherent riskiness?

kjs34• 12 years ago

Only if you assume you're going to fail. No entrepreneur goes into it thinking it's not going to work out. The difference is that a parent doesn't say "things look rough...fuck it, I'll sleep on a friends couch for a couple of weeks, go to some networking events and start something different". We're in for the long haul.

bbwharris• 12 years ago

"The company died largely because of that."

What a crock of shit. Most companies fail, and you can blame the guy with a family as the main source of failure? I wonder what he will blame the next failure on.

harel• 12 years ago

Each child you have is one more reason to 'make it'. They are the main motivation of my work. Without them I don't know how motivated I would be to succeed.

pyalot2• 12 years ago

Leonardo Da Vinci would disagree. In a letter to his brother he answered him to the news of the birth of his nephew, that he had created himself a great distraction.

je423• 12 years ago

And I would disagree. Kids bring the world of the next generation to you instead of getting completely stuck in your "native" generation.

In this world I would say, the more exposure to different worlds and points of views the better.

Maxious• 12 years ago

My most beloved brother,
This is sent merely to inform you that a short time ago I received a letter from you from which I learnt that you have had an heir, which circumstance I understand has afforded you a great deal of pleasure. Now in so far as I had judged you to be possessed of prudence I am now entirely convinced that I am as far removed from having an accurate judgment as you are from prudence; seeing that you have been congratulating yourself in having created a watchful enemy, who will strive with all his energies after liberty, which can only come into being at your death.

http://archive.org/stream/notebooksofleona027479mbp/notebook...

Harsh stuff.

runewell• 12 years ago

This can go many ways. I would say on average a startup is unhealthy for someone with kids but if you're a highly organized and motivated person it isn't that difficult.

rayiner3• 12 years ago

I don't know if I buy the pitch in the article 100%, but it makes some good points.

I did find one quote in the article particularly interesting: "Immediately one of the more prominent HN members pointed out that I'm somehow at a disatvantage since there's a version of me out there without being burdened by having to support a family and thus has a bigger chance of success."

I would say that all else being equal, you are more likely to be successful in launching a startup if you don't have kids. That said, everything is rarely equal. I don't know too many people in my age group who devote themselves 100% to work. Even if they're a miserable person with no hobbies, they at the very least spend a lot of time trying to find relationships. If they don't, it has a really negative effect on their emotional state. They spend a lot more time with friends to get all the necessary social interaction. In other words, unless you're extremely introverted, having a family isn't purely a cost on your time--it satisfies certain emotional and social needs that would otherwise take time to meet.

aortega• 12 years ago

I'm the founder of a moderately sucessful infosec startup, and my child was born at the same time. It was hard for everybody. Lets face it, startups take much more time than a regular job, and we don't have any of the state-given benefits.

One important rule that I have is minimize the time away from home. I have to travel a lot and I've found that for kids, time perception is different than for adults. A week seems short time for a 35 year old, but it's an eternity for a toddler. For that reason I try to stay away from home only the necessary time and not a single hour more. Thats a limitation that I try to balance offering experience and profesionality.

And also, I always try to come back with a lot of gifts :)

trendoid• 12 years ago

It really depends on what ones priorities are. If someone is really in the middle of starting up or even immensely enjoying the current work that she ends up spending most of the time in office, why the hell would you want kids?

Raising decent kids requires proper planning and you need time to observe them and change those plans accordingly if required. Only when you have decided to chill down on work and consider yourself ready for another interesting venture should you go ahead and have kids. Think about your priorities, period.

batoure• 12 years ago

The thing that strikes me about arguments like these is that they are fundamentally one sided. Without even getting into the walking confirmation bias of using your self as an example, the author sets this up so that a simple proportion of people who will just flat out disagree.

When it really comes down to it starting something is really about the passion to do it. If you want to succeed the thing you want to succeed at needs to be an idea that you can't get out of your head. So that when you are playing with your kids or managing your bowling league your subconscious brain continues to work away at the idea of moving your business forward.

I have known people who tried to start businesses with kids and succeeded I have also known people who start businesses with kids and fail miserably.

In the end it is because having kids or not having kids is going to have nothing to do with your success or failure. Being dedicated and inspired to succeed will.

Maybe you get your inspiration from your kids as the OP does, or maybe you just really want to see the world with another web framework. Either way, if you truly want it to happen then you will make a version of it work.

vacri9• 12 years ago

Anecdote != data, and speaking as someone in his early 40s, who's single and childless, you do grow out of that "drunk every weekend" phase fairly quickly. Or at least, it's 'quickly' from where I'm standing. It gets increasingly rarer from your late 20s onwards, whether you have children or not.

kjs34• 12 years ago

Since you're going to provide nothing but anecdote after condescending with != data, I'll provide mine. As someone in his late 40s, the majority of my age and social group who are "single and childless" are poor impulse control horny drunks. Love every one of them, but it is what it is. The second most numerous are gay, many of whom are now becoming not-single as laws change. Most of the remainder are sociopaths. But anecdote != data so feel free to pretend my reality doesn't exist.

vacri9• 12 years ago

Next time you accuse someone of being condescending, perhaps don't do it yourself in response. Lead by example rather than respond in the same kind that you deride.

greghinch• 12 years ago

Elon Musk has 5 sons (!). It that doesn't prove that children being a distraction is a fallacy, what will?

pandapanda2• 12 years ago

He got rich before having any children.

nsxwolf2• 12 years ago

And he still does a lot of work now.

analog313• 12 years ago

What do wages say about the relative productivity of people with and without kids? So far as I know people with kids tend to earn more. I once read about a study, finding that among unskilled single women in a neighborhood in Chicago, those with kids tended to have higher wage jobs.

Some anecdata: I had a very comfortable engineering job when my first kid was born, but it was pretty much dead-end in terms of salary. I re-evaluated my career, and applied for a higher paying job that is widely regarded as being difficult, boring, political, and stressful.

All of the applicants, and from what I can tell, virtually all of the people who hold those crappy but higher paying jobs, have kids. I asked a bachelor why he didn't apply for the job, and he said: "Are you kidding me, I want to enjoy my evenings and weekends, and I have no reason to make more money."

mavdi• 12 years ago

People with no kids, please don't listen to anyone telling you how a great source of motivation these adorable little prats are. I've personally been fucked in so many unimaginable since my kid was born. Really think about it hard before committing to such madness.

VaedaStrike4• 12 years ago

My, at times perceived, 'neglecting' of past jobs in favor of being available for my wife and son is the very reason my wage has tripled and I'm now doing the work I love. Getting let go from two jobs were the best things to happen to my career AND my dreams of starting a start-up. If it wasn't for the focus that having a family to provide for, and build a future for, I personally would not have the ambition to take the risks and work and push myself like I have. I wouldn't be a programmer and I wouldn't still have the vision of the company and future I intend to create.

Children are startups. They are practices for startups. They entail commitment, chaos, emotional chaos, growth and faith and all that effort and sweat and tears and you don't have a clue as to how they are going to turn out until many many years and tears into the project. And even then it's still a guess as to where things will go.

And, at the end of the day, every innovator and humanity builder was a kid. Even if my startup doesn't go where I hope it will, I've got eggs in more than one basket. :)

steven2012• 12 years ago

The real factor is whether or not your spouse takes care of the children completely. Or if you have your parents at home taking care of the kids.

Because from my own experience, taking care of a newborn with the two spouses both working demanding jobs is extremely, extremely hard. It's just about the hardest thing I've ever done, and my wife agrees. We are both exhausted every day, weekends are even harder than the weekdays, and time to ourselves is the most precious commodity we have and the thing we have the least of.

If you can't have your parents take care of the kid during the day, or if you can't afford a nanny, then the issues related to day care compound the situation a great deal.

If one of the spouses agrees to completely take care of the kid, it makes it a lot easier to spend the extra energy, because it gives you the flexibility required to do things that startups need. The thing that is the most limiting is time and schedule flexibility, and energy. Without that flexibility, the ability to go beyond what is expected is extremely hard, in my own experience.

Dear founders: Children are not a distraction, they are motivation

Related Stories