[m23khan]

being a wealthy country often means:

nuclear families + rise in dual income households = greater GDP = greater inflation = push for knowledge economy = loss of unionized workplaces = reduced workplace benefits such as defined benefit pension = increase scrutiny of worker = more educated workforce = more competition at workplace = greater time commitment towards work and self knowledge upgrade = greater demands for expensive leisure activities

Not against any step of the process that I listed above. I am just stating the societal transformation as I see it for any xyz country out there that becomes wealthy over time.

However, this model ultimately ends up treating children and sometimes marriage (And even romantic relationships to an extent) as shackles and hurdles on the road to success. And for those who still want to get into relationship and have kid(s) unfortunately means you have to work and save for a lot longer time before making it economically feasible to have kid(s).

While this may still work out in case of males, for females, unfortunately, the more they wait to have kids (hey, I am not saying anything against this -- it is their body and their choice and their is nothing wrong with this and yes, all the power to them -- I get that, thx) - the more likely they won't have as many kids as in previous generations (Due to their biological clocks).

Of course, it is always going to be down to individual will power and personality, but I am stating from common person's perspective.

[Frost1x]

>However, this model ultimately ends up treating children and sometimes marriage (And even romantic relationships to an extent) as shackles and hurdles on the road to success.

And not just shackles in the traditional sense. Having children compounds matters because wealth and competitive advantage is largely about relative values.

If it becomes the norm that, defying economic pressures, everyone has children, culture in a democracy can force societal change in policy and business to make these conditions reasonable. On the other hand, in a highly competitive labor market, it's a chosen competitive disadvantage to have a child. Less time to devote to work, higher comp needed to support them and the family, etc. You're at a disadvantage to your peers that can sacrifice their personal lives more easily than a responsible parent can.

Case in point, I've done a large amount of contractual work. I have a friend who works in the same ecosystem and they've had to pass up on opportunities to work a bit of overtime that helped me solidify a future business relationship and contract by being there to deliver when they needed it. My friend on the other hand has a family and simply couldn't put in the extra hours in the short turnaround requested. The bias went towards me, the one with flexibility (no children but relationship with working professional who understands) to grasp these opportunities. That person shortly after had difficulty finding a new contract while I had a solid portfolio to work from. I don't like the idea because I'd like to have kids in the near future but it's quite clear you suffer a huge blow economically, in ways often seen and unseen, at least in the US.

[sjg007]

I remember when the big tech companies started offering an egg freezing benefit in addition to IVF. I hope they also offer flexible work for new moms and dads as well.

But the US as a whole needs to do better, we are way behind the curve.

[paulryanrogers]

When my first was born there was no paternity or maternity leave. Apparently it was unpaid FMLA or use your PTO. Thankfully it was "unlimited" PTO and I've not yet encountered any shadow limits. (Though did have to get VP approval for 15 consecutive days.)

[nerdponx]

No reason knowledge workers can't or shouldn't unionize!

[silentnight]

“ being a wealthy country often means: nuclear families”

nah, thats usually the case in poor countries. nuclear, religious, and and obedient wife.

[monocasa]

I think they're saying nuclear families rather than multi generational households.