Discussion on:

Why this woman says we're in a post-'having it all' world

'Acknowledge the need for work-life balance I think we really have to change what it means to work full time, on a really fundamental level, Ms. Rota says. That goes beyond just making time for parenting, she says, but whatever else is central to employees lives.'

Too many people sacrifice the joy of a nurturing home life for a successful career.

The key to having it all, for women and men, is finding that balance.

A wise friend recently reminded me to work to live, dont live to work.

Thanks Hates Idiots, I thought that point of hers was especially compelling as well.

I think "having it all" was a myth. I've seen a lot of people become very disappointed with their lives because they fell for the idea of something that never existed, and simply was not possible in the real world.

I think we're seeing a 'having it all' backlash. Women are saying, let's put aside focus on the need to perfectly balance careers and babies, and bring to light more tangible issues that make workplaces inhospitable.

...that you can "have it all". You just can't have it all at once, or at the same time.

I agree with the idea that tech careers, and all of STEM for that matter, should be presented as a creative field, as well as a one requiring logic and reasoning. As a female mathematician (in training, I'm still an undergrad) I fail to understand how logic and creativity some how became diametrically opposed ideas, but that's another issue altogether. My greater concern is why are sooooooooooooooo many people turned off by the idea of careers and academic fields that are traditionally associated with strong logic and reasoning abilities. This aversion is shared by men and women alike, though it does seem to be particularly acute in the majority of the latter. It's a bit frightening to me when I hear people almost bragging about how poor their math skills are, as if they were trying to distance themselves from a group of undesirable people, people who have become undesirable precisely *because* they have those skills. This is appalling! Some of the coolest, most interesting people I've ever met, including my S/O, are folks who are great at logic, science, and math. I just can't understand why folks run for the hills when you start waving a bit of calculus or involved algebra around. On the other hand, leaving my math notes out and open on the table at school does tend to ensure that if I have to get up and leave my stuff for a few minutes, no one touches it. I've actually watched people look at my things, and then screw up their faces as if they smelled something truly unpleasant, and give my work space a wide berth. Raw mathematics as a security system, who knew?

I hadn't truly considered that before - by saying we need to hype technical careers as creative, we're in a way saying that purely logic/reasoning pursuits are somehow less than. I'm not sure why that bias exists, but I'll be careful to be mindful of it in my own reporting.

When do we start moving beyond platitudes and get down to the hard details? Work/life balance is an issue for most people because they think "balance" is a 50/50 proposition. The reality is that most everyone decides for themselves (intentionally or not) what that balance is. How much of yourself do you want to give to work, how much to your personal life. The balance that seems perfectly reasonable to one person is unreasonable to someone else. The expectation that corporations, governments, or any other entity is somehow supposed to provide each of us with a work environment that exactly suits our personal view of "balance" is ridiculous, and really nothing more than an excuse for our not figuring it out for ourselves. I find this to be a pervasive attitude (about many things) in our society today - a highly ego-centric worldview that assumes organizations must accommodate our individual desires and perceived needs.

There are tens of millions of Americans who would welcome that dilemma; but there are no jobs.
Being creative with technology usually means fewer employment opportunities.

I never "had it all". I never wanted to "have it all". All I wanted in life was to live within my means and save enough so I could invest in safe investments and live out my retirement in peace and security.
Now that I have supposedly achieved my goals the federal reserve decides to lower interest rates to zero to bail out those who lived outside their means trying to "have it all". I and any others "in my boat" are now paying for the irresponsible ones.
It is ironic, they had me coming with an 8% mortgage, now that its paid off(by me) I get 0% on my savings account. Either this or gamble in the markets (check out 1972, 1980, 2000, and 2008 to see what rewards this can get you. The federal reserve got me coming and going.
If you want to rein in unbridled development and wasteful spending, raise rates so our youth have an incentive to "save for a rainy day".Saving limits consumption which benefits the whole world.

...by the very people who swore that they wouldn't raise your taxes. Instead, they're just printing money so the government can spend it without actually having anyone held responsible for doing so. While they pay lip service to wanting to tax the 1%, they're literally stealing from the 99%. And they'll get away with it because most people will never understand how it really happened.

" . . . to bail out those who lived outside their means trying to "have it all". I and any others "in my boat" are now paying for the irresponsible ones."

It wasn't your greedy neighbors who have taken advantage of you, but policy-makers and profit-takers.

"Such a country would be more stable, Bush argued, and more prosperous. 'America is a stronger country every single time a family moves into a home of their own,' he said in October 2004. To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the 'zero-down-payment initiative,' which was much as it soundsa government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment. More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgagesderivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/10/10/end-of-the-ownership-society.html

The social engineering policy makers just made it possible for your neighbors to exercise their greed with such abandon.

My neighborhood has very few greedy people. In fact, it is almost a utopia. We do not need gates, security guards, etc etc adlib. Everyone knows everyone else, even their name. Most folks are either retired or have a job doing something useful. None I know went in over their heads.Our homes are older, small, but well kept. The homes were built on the sandy, rugged soil not suitable for cultivation. The community was founded in 1686. That is a long time for an "ownership society" to exist. We must be doing something right.
The people who got bailed out generally live in "gated" communities, would not give their neighbor the time of day, and trade shares for a living. They bought during a period of relatively low rates and went in over their heads. Bernanke reset rates at zero to save them. Some of the millionaire bankers got outright grants from the government (that is-us).These are the people I'm talking about, not the people they took advantage of. Sorry, I must have miscommunicated something.
When I first bought a home Paul Volcker was fed chairman. He slew the inflation dragon. More recently he assisted the Obama Administration in stopping the big banks from investing in hedge funds and other risky investments. He was head of the President's Economic Advisory Board for 3 years ending his term in 2011.
I suggest a return in Volcker's direction to limit overconsumption and enhance sustainability.
It does not benefit me to have an overinflated house value. All that does is raises property taxes and insurance costs. The young and un/underemployed would be better off if they were able to afford food, clothing, and shelter. Lowering interest rates to encourage borrowing to buy something worth less than its value when interest rates inevitably rise is extremely dangerous. A job that pays worthless paper is worse than no job. No job is worse than a job that actually pays wages which can be saved and used later.
We need to focus on sustainable employment. The current economic environment is not sustainable in the long term. You cannot print your way out of a monetary crisis. Sometimes a little deflation is a good thing. The initial pain is more than compensated for by the later rewards.
I would like to end this diatribe by noting the great website on recipes Ms Rota is involved in running. It has some very helpful information. Seems to me some young women are really capable of having it all, even nowadays. "You go, Ms Kara Rota!"

We all have our dreams and goals. Hopefully they're a blend of great relationships, a decent roof over our heads and a couple bucks in the bank. Now all we see is people wanting stuff. Are they happier? Loads of debt they'll never pay off. Constant stress over how they'll pay for stuff they never needed but wanted. Invest in things that give us long term enjoyment. A home we really can afford. A car we're willing to drive for a decade or longer and relationships that can last a lifetime. Now that's what I call having it all. Too bad this value died decades ago. Most people have debt - just make sure the debt doesn't own you/us/me.