I'm not knocking Paul Graham or anyone who did well for themselves. But comparing your experience with that of Paul Graham, one of the richest people on the planet, is pointless. The wealthy live on a completely different PLANET than you or me.
Of course he enjoys having kids, he has NONE of the stress of supporting himself and his family.
His kids are going to have private tutors and house cleaners.
He won't sweat the cost of daycare. He will never have to worry about paying for college.
He is going to have a nanny whenever he needs someone to watch the kids.
He will never have to worry about making rent for the rest of his life.
He will still be able to pursue whatever he dreams of with basically 0 risk.
Agreed. I'm in my early 30s and don't have kids because I don't think I can provide for them unless I spend all my income and free time/ambitions on them. I make a good income as a programmer but I still live paycheck to paycheck because of cost of living in the Bay Area.
I watched the people I went to high school with have kids very late allowing more structured time to complete their education as early as possible and excel to vice president positions in the corporate world. They excelled far more quickly and far more early in their careers than I.
In contrast my children will be out of the house and on their own while I am barely middle aged. Since I have never entered management in the corporate world but have grown two simultaneous careers, corporate software developer and military security analyst and network operations chief, I have a combination of skills I would not have developed otherwise.
In a bit when the children are out I can pursue all the career and startup dreams that young people dream of but without regrets or challenges of raising kids. Perhaps I am still naive, but I am certainly not rich.
I met a person in a similar situation via a mountain bike group where I live. Kids are out of the house and now he has time for bike riding, date nights and, being in his 40ies is still fit, healthy and very active.
Definitely top 0.01% in the world though. Quick google search estimates lower end of net worth around $250m, and top 0.01% in 2012 was about $111m. So he's up there, but yea, not the tippy top I guess.
Most of us have rich lives compared to the average parent in 1950. I was struck by how Bryan Caplan put it in perspective [1]:
> If you asked parents in the Fifties to imagine raising their four children with the help of the technology and wealth that we take for granted, they probably would have cheered. Why are so few couples taking advantage of this historic opportunity?
No, worries never go away no matter where you’re at in life. It boils down to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.
He doesn’t have to worry about financial stuff and instead gets to focus his worries on getting sick, dying prematurely, and not giving his children the awesome life he can with his unique personality.
You didn’t mention that anywhere in your list, but I guarantee you it’s on his.
Poorer people also worry about that. And that's even worse for us with a lower wage. If I die, who will be able to provide for my children? I'm sure Paul is able to make arrangements so his kids can still have a finatially stable living if he dies prematurely.
It is a fact that life is easier for him now. Just as much life is easier for me than probably around 99% of the people in the planet. Even though I'm nowhere near to even be considered rich.
Of course he enjoys having kids, he has NONE of the stress of supporting himself and his family.
His kids are going to have private tutors and house cleaners.
He won't sweat the cost of daycare. He will never have to worry about paying for college.
He is going to have a nanny whenever he needs someone to watch the kids.
He will never have to worry about making rent for the rest of his life.
He will still be able to pursue whatever he dreams of with basically 0 risk.