As I wrote in the reply above, I know many now adult children of similar parents. They're doing fine.
I also know some whose parents had more of an attitude like you, that this could all be gone soon and you need to resolutely pursue money and status to be safe when that happens. Usually kids of immigrants. They seem to have much more strained relationships to their parents - and not that much better outcomes on average.
Where you are, maybe your advice is sound. But odds are that OP understands their own situation better than you who aren't in it; and that in Sweden you would be barking up the wrong tree, guarding against the wrong threats.
What would be even better is knowing a few useful trades.
And if the government or economy fails, children are more or less the traditional sort of "insurance" against penury in old age.
This is true, but the author doesn't pretend otherwise, or hide this fact.
That you accuse him of being selfish I think says more about you than him. I went to a Waldorf school once upon a time, so I knew a lot of kids who grew up in a similar-ish way - lots of siblings, little money, low tech and with unconventional and somewhat iconoclastic parents who had rejected the middle-class lifestyle (which they, like OP, could easily have had access to through relational capital). None of those kids that I know of have done especially poorly. Most of them have turned out very different from their parents, from becoming social media celebrities to getting involved with MLM-like schemes. But I don't think any of them are bitter about their upbringing, or alienated from their "selfish" parents.
I'm not saying that it's impossible they will have those opportunities, but it's less likely than if they had access to the best schools - which the article states they don't. Maybe the author tries to make up for this in other ways, but IMO it's unlikely to afford the same opportunities. Plus, as GP mentions, there's no mention in this article of any of that.
> None of those kids that I know of have done especially poorly. Most of them have turned out very different from their parents, from becoming social media celebrities to getting involved with MLM-like schemes.
Getting involved in MLM sounds like doing poorly to me. At least it is morally questionable. Maybe they're doing well financially.
My "social media star" friend is a school nurse who connects extremely well - and constructively - to the youth generation she serves through her job. I would think that her uncommon background (including a lot more younger siblings than is common in this country, and all with an individualistic streak) prepared her somewhat for that job. I'm sure that if she had instead been given what you and the person I replied to see as an "optimal" background, she would be less prepared for it.
As for the MLM guy, to be fair, I don't know if he's still into that, he just pitched some questionable cell phone provider once when we were in engineering school together. I do know he's better off than me materially today. I mentioned him to illustrate that the apple can fall further from the tree, too.
I know several families like this, generally hippies with an educated middle-class background, but without the desire to sacrifice themselves for money and it's trappings (and benefits). Their kids are intelligent and interesting people, and as far as I can see, have been given life as an open canvas, not as a paint-by-numbers exercise, which so many others experience.
I think that's an unwarranted fear considering he's got more time for his kids than most parents.
His upbringing/mental health is probably not without flaw, but seriously whos is? We've got such narrow minded ideas about what a healthy life looks like nowadays. I blame advertisement.
And snobby. He spends a lot of time rationalizing how his choices are morally superior.
There seems to be a lot of baggage from his childhood and subtle resentment to his parents. I'm concerned for his mental health. If this is truly just his personal choice though, I really question the relationship he has with his children and his justifications for how he provides the bare minimum for them when her could certainly do more. For someone so focused on frugality and minimalism his discussion about his children was focused completely on materialism, gift giving and the fact that a little under half of his monthly income came from government programs targeted at children. I kept expecting to read something about how he connects with them in emotionally meaningful ways or helps them grow and thrive. That love and care just didn't seem there.
Ultimately I worry about the kids, specifically their emotional and developmental needs. Their dad is so focused on himself and how he wants to live. That sounds like a very tough home to grow up in, even if the author was spectacularly rich.