[jedberg]

One thing that makes this easier is being rich. What I mean by that is for example, when my kid is asking me questions or wants to "do it myself!", the fact that I have a flexible schedule helps immensely, and that flexible schedule is possible because I can turn down work that doesn't give me that flexibility.

If I had a strict clock-in/clock-out job, and only had limited time to run errands, I'd have a lot less patience for waiting for my kid to do stuff or answering her questions.

I consider myself very lucky that I have that privilege and can pass that on to my kids.

[imnotadoctor999]

Maybe it helps being rich, but just as a counter example, my grandfather was never rich. He was a clock-in/clock-out guy and still managed to spend a lot of time with me while I was growing up. He had a lot more patience than most of the "white collar" adults in my life ever did, and taught me lots of useful skills like how to fix a lot of electrical or mechanical things.

[jedberg]

Sure it’s possible to do it when you’re not rich. It’s just a lot easier if you are. Like many things in life. :)

[pvg]

"It's better to be young, rich and healthy than old, sick and poor" is probably not the most novel insight worth writing down for the benefit of others.

[jedberg]

I believe the insight that I was sharing is that it matters in this case, as many people would not realize that it is relevant here.

[pvg]

You think 'a lot of things that take time are easier when you have the means to do whatever you want with your time' is something that eludes most people? About anything much, really, be it child rearing or laundry? I think that is very, very unlikely.

[jedberg]

My experience as a parent and in talking to other parents says yes, it eludes most anyone I ever talk to about it.

Also the 33 point on the post tell me at least 33 more people found it interesting than did not.

[cbsmith]

White collar doesn't mean rich. It means never really clocking out because your time is valuable enough it is worth monetizing every minute of it.

[pbhjpbhj]

We actually made a decision to cut our income considerably in order to be as involved as we can in our kids upbringing - we're basically almost always able to go to school concerts, we always eat together, we practically never aren't with them at bedtime, etc..

It's great. But I think we missed the balance a little - there are so many life experiences that are out of reach that we parents experienced when we were kids. Yes being tight with our kids is awesome - but when they get old enough to spread their wings a little, and when they're inquisitive about new things, then supporting that is exceedingly difficult when you're of low means.

School skiing trip? Not a chance, way out of our price bracket. Holiday abroad? Same, the interest is there, they're keen to learn geography/languages/culture. Piano lessons? Same, we've got a keyboard, one child is really keen and show some ability but we don't have means to support him in that and let him find fulfilment through that creativity.

But I do get to talk Fibonacci series; build fires in the woods; teach them about how aliens with 0, 4, 16 fingers count; but buy an up to date globe, or take them for a train ride, or go on a boat, or have a pet, or visit a mountain, ...

My problem is not time so much, nor fostering inquisition, but resources to develop the questioning in to solid foundations. Our kids are not the free-spirits of knowledge-hunger we anticipated because we instead have to follow economics.

[gowld]

It's not "being rich" that helps, it's having a high hourly rate of pay relative to expenses. Many rich people work 60+ hr weeks with travel, and don't see their kids much. Many non-rich people are stay-at-home parents or extended family. Of course, they can hire nannies, governors, and tutors to fill in the gaps...