Hacker Remix

"Somebody Tranq That Child!"

33 points by surprisetalk 1 day ago | 37 comments

0_gravitas 1 day ago

> Combine multiple families in one household.

> Adopt multigenerational living.

> Cut your commute. Sacrifice space to relocate around work, or sacrifice pay to work closer to home.

Most of these suggestions are detached from reality, I don't move away from my family because I feel some arbitrary social expectation, I do it because I want space and freedom. Maybe for the few that are both A) highly extroverted and social, and B) happen to have a good relationship with all of their family members/friends family, this could appear pleasant.

Another option is to simply not have kids, no one is forcing you (outside of possible familial pressure, all the more reason to keep a healthy distance...)

octokatt 1 day ago

> Most of these suggestions are detached from reality, I don't move away from my family because I feel some arbitrary social expectation, I do it because I want space and freedom.

I'm going against the grain a little here, and say that's reasonable. Not all families are great to live with. Heck, I had some cousins I tried living with and nearly permanently damaged my relationship with them.

I will say deciding to live with an extended _found_ family can be awesome. There's usually someone around to help pick up slack, and there's nothing quite like the relationships you can form based on that extended time together.

Even the extended found family thing, though? Not always great. I'd say what communal living does is make for higher lows, and sometimes lower highs. If you're in abundant circumstances where you have multiple close relationships and survival/logistics aren't an issue, it's largely unnecessary -- but if you aren't, it's really worth trying.

fatnoah 1 day ago

> Cut your commute. Sacrifice space to relocate around work

I've actually done this. It was a massive financial stretch, but probably the best thing I've ever done for my own and my family's wellbeing...and it's not a thing that just anyone can do.

I've also done the opposite, as circumstances and life changed.

Even later in life, I've gone completely the other way. I commute once a week to spend Tuesday through Thursday near my job in another city.

Every person, situation, and dynamic is unique. There's no one-size solution that applies all of the time. The real key, IMHO, is reflecting on and knowing what you want, and then optimizing for that.

graemep 1 day ago

> A) highly extroverted and social, and B) happen to have a good relationship with all of their family members/friends family, this could appear

Only B is required. Why would you need to be extroverted to live with your family!?

If you do not have a good relationship with your family that is the real problem.

Why not cut your commute. Working from home has been so liberating.

> Another option is to simply not have kids, no one is forcing you

Most people want to have kids. They are the most fulfilling thing in most people's lives. Its an option, but it means giving up a lot so is anything but "simply".

0_gravitas 1 day ago

I hope you understand that "why not cut your commute" is a highly privileged question; I'm happy its been easy for you, but wfh is not a guarantee in most lines of work, and neither is reasonable CoL anywhere; wherever you live, you still need to pay bills (and not to mention that the process of moving itself is rarely easy).

And there's a lot of things I would love/want to do that I "simply" don't, because I either can't afford it, or its otherwise incompatible with my current position in life/security. This is part of being an adult.

And I have a decent relationship with most family members near me, but spending time with them is still eventually mentally exhausting, I moved out for a reason. I suspect more extroverted people do not experience such exhaustion from continued socializing (which would obv be more frequent in a multigenerational/multifamily home), so thats why I mentioned it.

graemep 15 hours ago

> I hope you understand that "why not cut your commute" is a highly privileged question

Yes I do understand that, but it is one of many choices.

It also involves trade offs. For me it was one of multiple benefits of making a lot less money.

tmtvl 1 day ago

> Why not cut your commute. Working from home has been so liberating.

For people who work as, say, a crane operator at a loading/unloading dock it's exactly a simple thing to ask ships and trains to come all the way to your house. Same thing for bricklayers, warehouse workers, cashiers, librarians, archeologists, prison wardens,...

graemep 15 hours ago

Some of those people might be able to get a lower paid job closer to home, others might be able to move closer to work.

Its not possible for everyone, but it is possible for a lot of people.

s1artibartfast 1 day ago

"detached from reality" seems like an overstatement.

Most of these are tradeoffs. Space and freedom is clearly what is sacrificed in this tradeoff, but that doesn't mean it isnt realistic. I tend to agree that these are the choices people are presented with. the question is just the balance they choose to strike.

low_tech_love 1 day ago

One problem that is hard to consider is that parents are humans too, and as parents start to get children older and older, things become complex. We get older and start to feel our time slip away and all the stuff we wanted to do become less and less real, we feel fear and anxiety, and make suboptimal decisions. The world is a harsh place full of noise, so let’s cut parents some slack too. :)

m3047 1 day ago

This is allegorical, folks. Have blowguns shrunk so much in the past forty years that they now fit in your pocket?

salomonk_mur 20 hours ago

Phones. He's talking about smartphones.

ramesh31 1 day ago

Nobody does this because nobody wants to do this. Communal and multigenerational living was the default standard for all of human history. But as soon as people are wealthy enough in any society, they get out of it.

Suppafly 1 day ago

>Communal and multigenerational living was the default standard for all of human history. But as soon as people are wealthy enough in any society, they get out of it.

This. I'm not sure why we pretend poor people live like that because they want to or because their society is better, when the reality is that most people wouldn't live like that if they had a choice.

dmonitor 1 day ago

It's no doubt fine enough for adults, but the blog post is focused on how it affects children

ramesh31 1 day ago

>It's no doubt fine enough for adults, but the blog post is focused on how it affects children

Doubly so for children. Being locked into a rigid hierarchical familial/social situation that one is born into completely inhibits the development of self reliance, individuality, and a (healthy) ego. You are never allowed to be something that you are not expected to be by others and thus can never truly grow as a person. And if you try, you will be cut down to size, because "who do you think you are?".

For an example, just look at the people who never left your hometown compared to the ones who went and made a life for themselves. It's pretty miserable and depressing to see grown adults trapped as the same person they were in high school.

alyandon 1 day ago

  For an example, just look at the people who never left your hometown compared to the ones who went and made a life for themselves. It's pretty miserable and depressing to see grown adults trapped as the same person they were in high school.

Can confirm. Grew up in a small oilfield town in Texas and could not get out of there fast enough. Most (not all obviously) of my high school peers that I kept contact with that never left did not fair as well as I did.

s1artibartfast 1 day ago

>For an example, just look at the people who never left your hometown compared to the ones who went and made a life for themselves. It's pretty miserable and depressing to see grown adults trapped as the same person they were in high school.

My experience is the opposite. Most people that I know that stayed in my hometown earned less but were married and homeowners by 25, had children and parental daycare by 30.

On the other hand, Most of my peers that moved to the Bay Area are struggling to make the life goals they want. They earn twice as much, but are still priced out of homeownership at 35 and struggle to raise children without community support.

Maybe your experience is different, but IMHO, community is a huge net positive, and life in isolation stifles personal growth. Not every social situation is rigidly hierarchical and abusive.

jwells89 1 day ago

I may be misinterpreting, but I think that what the quoted post is talking about is probably independent from the kind of development you’ve mentioned.

For instance, while the person who never moved from their hometown might’ve been able to hit societal goalposts earlier on, they may never have had the opportunity to explore, experiment, and figure themselves and what they want to do out (as opposed to the identity they’d picked up via osmosis from family).

Speaking personally, in retrospect I was certainly underdeveloped in that way until my late 20s and early 30s, even though I couldn’t perceive that at the time. The requisite independence/autonomy and experience just wasn’t there until several years later. Had I locked myself into my situation with a marriage and children at that age I think it’s quite likely I would’ve come to regret it in the years following, increasing risk of outcomes such as divorce.

dzhiurgis 1 day ago

There might be some natural selection there. Some were attracted to experiment and explore (some had shitty family) and left for better pastures.

s1artibartfast 1 day ago

People do prefer space when given an option, but living in a long hut isnt the only way to have community. There are tons of people who intentionally live in co-located communities and make tradeoffs to be close to family.