"What do you call a drummer without a girlfriend?"

"Homeless."

I had to constantly remind myself, when my college friends were going off to do startups that they wouldn't be sleeping under a bridge if they failed.

Even something as simple as a supportive family is a huge leg up compared to those who don't have it.

“Even something as simple as a supportive family“

That’s a strange wording, isn’t a supportive family widely known to be an absolutely huge benefit?

I think the implication is that, as opposed to starting a romantic relationship with someone who can support you or a side hustle or etc., having a supportive family is much more passive (and somewhat a roll of the dice, but generally speaking if you were lucky/privileged enough to be born into a family who can emotionally and/or financially support you, there probably isn't much labor/effort you had to put into to make it that way).

It's for sure a huge benefit; I think their point is that it's a huge benefit that doesn't require effort (just chance, or maintenance of good communication/relationship).

Everyone in silicon valley is familiar with founders that got seed money or connections from friends and family. My point is that even having a safe place to sleep isn't assured for some people, and folks should remember that when they pat themselves on the back for 'taking risks' founding a startup. Some people would be taking much larger risks than others.

What do you call a girl on the arm of a harmonica player?

A tattoo.

I wonder how many people there are out there supporting partners working on their struggling startup hmm.

I'd like to see a list of jobs for which:

1. We generally value as a society

2. Two people both working the job and married to each other cannot afford to raise two children.

There are some jobs which we romanticize as being this way (musicians and other artists being a big example), but are we okay with e.g. social workers all either starving, or from wealthy backgrounds?

Raising two children is a job in and of itself. Considering our children are the future's consumers, you'd think it would pay better.

Teaching in public schools would definitely fit in this category.

Teachers can afford to raise children.

This really depends on the state, but in many areas in the south, they cannot.

((Assuming we're talking about the US))

Both my parents were teachers in the South and I had everything I needed and a lot of what I wanted, including computers when they were really expensive. I even grew up in a house.

A lot of (rural) areas in the South are so poor, teachers are among the higher pay scale because they have a steady paycheck with health insurance. My area was a city though, so teachers were on the lower end.

Well yeah. Just not their own.

Snark aside, it's hard to imagine how you could raise kids plural on what a teacher makes here in Seattle. Even the absolute top of the teacher salaries here, after 12 promotions and with a PhD, pay about what my very first tech job did, many years and much inflation ago. I would never have tried to raise kids on that money.

> Teaching in public schools would definitely fit in this category.

Maybe not fresh-out-of-college but after 5ish years they almost certainly can afford it.

The playground supervisors probably can't though.

In most places in the USA, two married social workers can afford to raise two children without starving. It's only a few expensive areas where this is impossible.

Employers in high cost areas take advantage of the informal subsidies being discussed here to underpay social workers (as well as other socially valuable occupations such as teachers). But that won't change until the workers move away or switch occupations. There's just no incentive for employers to pay living wages as long as workers are willing to accept less.

If they're directly employed by the government, that's one thing. Nonprofit sector is another thing entirely, with generally poorer pay and benefits.

There are jobs that we pay lip service to, like musicians and teachers. But ultimately, the jobs we actually value are people in finance who make sure that our savings don't disappear.

Garbage people.

Aside: what is the gender neutral term for Garbage Man? Garbage people sounds like I'm disparaging them.

"Garbage collector"?

Sanitation workers

This is lots of people who work in nonprofit.

I worry there's a bit of HN bias here. I don't know anyone whose partner owns an investment management firm or similar.

I know a fair few day jobbing musicians and creatives of other stripes though, only one of which with parents of any real means.

One is a manager at a theatre, one does care work, one does WordPress and a bit of JS for small companies.

The most full-time musician I know did have the richest parents growing up, but he makes his cash teaching and doing session stuff in local theatres.

Given how income distributions work, I think day jobbing creatives are very much the majority.

Oh, you’re not wrong. There are lots of day-jobbing creatives that I know as well.

I’m one of them. I work a good tech job and do photography as a hobby.

Forgive me if I seemed overly focused on these folks and their lucky circumstances. If I’m being honest, I’m a bit jealous they get to spend all their time focused on their creative interests when I only get to do it part time.

If money wasn’t a requirement, I’d be out photographing every day instead of writing web code.

All in all, life is good though, so even if I’m a teeny bit jealous, I’m grateful for how good I have it in life. I’m pretty lucky, all things considered!

Heh, sorry if I misread or sounded narky! That category one is clearly there and influential, but I don't think you suggested they were everywhere.

I'm impressed by those who find the time and energy to be consistent with a craft, on top of the pressures of work and family.

I like a dabble here and there at lots of things, but don't make the time and don't follow through enough. Something to aspire to.