This aside has nothing to do with autism or the writer of the article. I just want to tackle the "having it all" discussion.
When people say they want to "have it all", they're not actually saying they won't be happy until they have everything. A life without tradeoffs is literally impossible. You can't, for example, become an expert on every subject or visit every location in the world or learn how to play every musical instrument ever made. It's impossible. Rather, they want a life full of the stupid bullshit tradeoffs that you have to deal with if they don't have resources, like having to decide between a 90-minute commute vs. living in a cramped space without a dishwasher.
Those horrid tradeoffs make it impossible for most people to achieve anything great. It becomes a self-perpetuating cycle. If you're losing 20 hours per week to housework, you won't have a good career. If you don't have a good career, you won't be able to afford help. You have to bust your ass during your 20s and 30s (and preferably not have any health problems or setbacks) while you can to establish momentum, and just hope that your reproductive potential hasn't declined too much by the time you're career's in order and society has thereby given you permission to have kids properly.
Tradeoffs always exist, but there are people who are richer and more established and have a higher quality of tradeoff to face. If you're debating whether to leave a high-level position for a "risky" CEO spot at a funded startup, this is a high-quality tradeoff. If "downshifting" your career means you buy a place with a view of Prospect Park instead of Central, that's a high-quality tradeoff. If having another kid means that one spouse is going to have to give up a career, that's a low-quality tradeoff. People with enough resources (not just income, but also connections; well-connected people don't fret about getting fired and don't have to work 60+ hours per week) can have two successful careers and well-adjusted children.
The "have it all" rhetoric is an attempt people make to universalize the problem, because no one can actually have everything, and divert attention away from the more specific/parochial fact that they're miserable because they don't have enough resources (since no one likes a person who whines about not being rich). And if you want to actually achieve something in this world, most people don't have enough. Most people spend their lives bogged down in shitty details implementing the crappy ideas of the people in power.
> If having another kid means that one spouse is going to have to give up a career, that's a low-quality tradeoff.
This is not an objective statement - that's your opinion. Perhaps the tradeoff is desirable - that person may not value their career so much, or can realize the obvious - you can always return to it later.
That said, I agree, "having it all" is a completely meaningless and damaging phrase - I equate it to "being all things to all people" - ie, rather naive outlook.
If having another kid means that one spouse is going to have to give up a career, that's a low-quality tradeoff.
That depends entirely on the spouse. In a culture where 2 working parents struggling to survive is the norm, the freedom (financial and otherwise) to be able to choose to stay home to raise children if that's what you want is certainly a high-quality tradeoff.
Being forced to abandon a career when that's not what you want is a low-quality tradeoff, yes.
Pretty accurate for my case. I have a nice new home, a good family, a good job, etc... but I spend a decent amount of my spare time working on a game as a side project because it's really my passion. I try not to complain about it though because I do realize I am very fortunate. However, I do definitely feel that catch-22 where if I didn't have a full time job I'd be able to dedicate more time for my game but without my job I'd be kind of screwed. At the end of the day though, I'm happy just to try and make my game work but I can't really complain about much even if it doesn't. I won't blame anyone else or even myself really, I do try hard. I'll just keep implementing the crappy ideas of the people in power instead.
This is also the same with money. People often say having a lot of money doesn't bring you happiness. Well neither does not having money.
Besides there is nothing like total happiness. You just have levels. Having a lot of money solves a lot of fundamental problems, giving you the room to worry about other high-quality issues in life.
You can never do away with those things, but having a lot of wealth, resources and money means you continually ensure all low level issues are taken care off and you move towards bigger things.
I don't think it takes a lot of wealth either. It just takes enough wealth to meet those low-level needs.
A lot of people spend a lot of their money on things that do not contribute to their overall quality of life and happiness. We can do with less if we are not interested in one-upping everyone else. A simple car (and only one if possible), a simple apartment in a safe community, basic food, etc. don't take a lot of wealth to maintain. What is required though, as the original author points out, is changing the expectations we have in life.
Why replace a working stove? Why is it that important that you have a new one? When I rented out my house, yes we replaced the stove but that was because the oven heating element had failed, and it had other problems. We felt that the move to a self-cleaning oven would be a good thing for the renters.
Do more with less, and the rest takes care of itself.
As michealochruch mentioned. You never get out of tradeoffs. The only thing is the more you have the more freedom you get to make 'high-quality' tradeoffs.
But my point is that you can get freedom by local optimization rather than just by getting more wealth. People lose a lot of freedom by squandering what they have.
I think though there is a deeper aspect of this. How can you be an employee and the parent you want to be, and still find time to do something great? The simple answer is you can't. You have to pick any two, and even there you have a bunch of tradeoffs. Want to breastfeed? How are you going to hold down a job unless you can have your kid around?
The work/home division makes this impossible especially for women. The answer of course is self-employment but that often means giving up on a "career."
I think this is on track to change in the next few generations with working from home being more and more legitimate. If you have the skill to do the job, you can be a software engineer that works from home 90%+ of the time today; innovations in telepresence and better collaboration software are going to really push this envelope in the future.
I think the more interesting question is whether we will see higher-value positions move more freely between self-employment and formal employment in the future. This would be the best possible solution. When it makes sense to be self-employed be self-employed. Then leverage that in getting into a higher-value job position when you return.
When people say they want to "have it all", they're not actually saying they won't be happy until they have everything. A life without tradeoffs is literally impossible. You can't, for example, become an expert on every subject or visit every location in the world or learn how to play every musical instrument ever made. It's impossible. Rather, they want a life full of the stupid bullshit tradeoffs that you have to deal with if they don't have resources, like having to decide between a 90-minute commute vs. living in a cramped space without a dishwasher.
Those horrid tradeoffs make it impossible for most people to achieve anything great. It becomes a self-perpetuating cycle. If you're losing 20 hours per week to housework, you won't have a good career. If you don't have a good career, you won't be able to afford help. You have to bust your ass during your 20s and 30s (and preferably not have any health problems or setbacks) while you can to establish momentum, and just hope that your reproductive potential hasn't declined too much by the time you're career's in order and society has thereby given you permission to have kids properly.
Tradeoffs always exist, but there are people who are richer and more established and have a higher quality of tradeoff to face. If you're debating whether to leave a high-level position for a "risky" CEO spot at a funded startup, this is a high-quality tradeoff. If "downshifting" your career means you buy a place with a view of Prospect Park instead of Central, that's a high-quality tradeoff. If having another kid means that one spouse is going to have to give up a career, that's a low-quality tradeoff. People with enough resources (not just income, but also connections; well-connected people don't fret about getting fired and don't have to work 60+ hours per week) can have two successful careers and well-adjusted children.
The "have it all" rhetoric is an attempt people make to universalize the problem, because no one can actually have everything, and divert attention away from the more specific/parochial fact that they're miserable because they don't have enough resources (since no one likes a person who whines about not being rich). And if you want to actually achieve something in this world, most people don't have enough. Most people spend their lives bogged down in shitty details implementing the crappy ideas of the people in power.