Balance: Work and Family

"Petty pissing matches ..." Aren't those the best kind?

The point is well-taken that, with regard to what is valued, to each his own. My posts on this topic -- and Dick's, too, I think -- were an attempt to provide greater context: Make sure you've factored in, as best you can, all you stand to gain and all you stand to give up.

 

Again, it is dispositive of the fact that they were able to at least date and marry. There are people here saying that they don't even have time for that much.

And I've covered more preps than 90 percent of the people here. I have enough experience to know that what seems like the world's greatest job at 22 isn't the same at age 27. Of course, that goes for any job. There was a thread on here about Chico Harlan, who caused a shitstorm when he said in an interview that he was "embarrassed" to cover sports. And he was a baseball beat writer at the Washington Post. Everyone's values are different. I credit that. It is theoretically possible that the young posters here would be pleased as punch to cover preps from here to age 65. It's not my thing, just like covering the baseball beat as a traveling guy for decades wouldn't be, for different-but-similar reasons.

 

This is one of the better posts here. Most of us can probably look at this situation and conclude he's going to feel much differently in 10 years than he does now. I'd bet a lot of money on all of us being right eventually. But if someone had tried to take away my privilege at age 25 of working all night and all weekend to produce the paper, I would have either ended the relationship or brought a debilitating amount of resentment into it.

 

I agree that you need to make this decision factoring everything in. If you choose work, then there will be some lonely nights. In order to climb to the top, you are going to cut off a date early because a trade is going down or a top recruit announced they are going to State U or because the local Podunk High football coach quit. Yes, you will make more money and will likely get to the top faster than anyone else, but you can't be so foolish to believe that prestige and salary will make you a good spouse and parent.

On the flip side, coming home to a spouse and children may be great, but can you take watching co-workers with less talent pass you by because they are willing to come in on Christmas Eve when the local NFL GM decided that was the perfect time to cut the struggling placekicker? Is the personal belief that you could beat them if you wanted enough to carry you through? Is spending time with the kiddo going to make up for it? For Dick, it clearly does. But he's saying that it should for everyone else, unless they make so much money that the financial stability is worth the tradeoff.

Whatever you choose -- and it is your choice -- be honest with those around you. If you decide that work is where you get the most satisfaction, then don't hold back because having a family is what everyone expects of you. And for most people like that, it doesn't matter if they cover HS girls bball, Big Ten football or the White House; work is where they feel their best and gives them the greatest joy. But if you meet someone who tells you that the most important thing to them is having a family someday, don't string them along and tell them that is what you want simply because you don't want to lose them and you are unwilling to change who you are.

 

I guess we should probably start prefacing some posts on threads like this with, "Just speaking for myself, this is what I've found ..." I'm serious. It seems like too often - and I'm guilty of this - we speak as the voice of God, instead of just one man/woman with an opinion and some experiences to draw on.

Like I said earlier on the thread, I met the woman who became my wife at age 24. She didn't make me do anything, but I certainly wanted to see where things led with her, and contributing 30 hours to the company every week wasn't conducive to that. (Not that there's never been tension about it - we've had the "workaholic" fight a few times.) I know other people who were in their late 40s or 50s before they realized that they were working 55-60 hours a week but personally unfulfilled.

I think that my work became much better once I cut back the hours and became more focused. Not to 40.0 most weeks. I'm not a clock-watcher, even though it probably seems like it from this thread. Even my editor at the time, during an evaluation, said, "Focus on writing less stories, but writing better ones."

 

Don't you think that there is a case-by-case judgment to be made, though? A volleyball coaching change breaks on your day off, it can probably wait. A football coaching change breaks, you probably make some calls. Maybe you make them from home instead of going into the office to do it. There's one tradeoff. Face time.

I know the money thing gets people really fired up around here -as it does in real life. It's politically incorrect, but it does become a factor. I'm not saying you work 80 hours. But maybe you work 50 for $70,000/year instead of 40 for $25,000/year. I think my wife and children would trade 10 hours with me for what $30,000 extra can purchase per year. Maybe you work 60 for $100,000 a year. There are so many factors. How far is your commute? How much travel is involved? How much weekend work? Can you do some work for home?

 

Agreed.

I think the need for change, if it ever happens, just hits you out of the blue at a certain point. A lot of people mentioned that in the "Breaking Points" thread that a point came in which the jobs that they loved to do at age 25 became soul-crushing by age 35 or when they noticed they missed one milestone too many to put out the paper or cover some coach's firing.

 

This thread is going the way it is because of something not everyone has realized or remembered yet.

For all the angst and arguments, the reason for them is this: We have all been original poster newspaperman, and we've all been Nighthawk.

It's just where they're at right now. Some of us are in another place at this point. But I can certainly remember being Nighthawk.

BB Bobcat is right. Life is a process, and what you might argue now is not necessarily the stand you would have made in another time or place.

 

The idea that in order to advance in this business, you must come in to the office on Christmas day to write 8 inches on a prep school coaching change is laughable.

You can do your job and do it well without sitting at your computer at 2 am scouring the web for information roughly five people might give a shit about.

 

I would equate "soul-crushing" just as easily with seeing someone finish off the final parts of a mostly thankless 40-year career and then die of cancer a few years later. With nothing truly meaningful -- wife, family, stability -- to show for it.

My youth is mine, it's not yours, it's one of the most valuable things I have, and nobody is going to take it from me. Or whatever is left of it, anyway.

 

Wow, I'm flattered. I'd like to start by thanking the Academy. And, of course, my lovely wife of 15 years and my two great kids...

Seriously, this also goes the other way. When I was 23 I worked with a guy who seemed to be totally mailing it in. He was probably 35 and had 3 little kids and seemed to only care about doing the minimum to GTFO and get to his kid's Little League game. I didn't have much respect for him professionally. Then a funny thing happened. His kids got older. He reinvented himself. He did a lot of cool stuff. He did have, and is still having, what I would call a very successful career.

Point is, everyone has to do whatever feels right at the time. Live your life. You only get one. [/fortunecookie]

 

Except I didn't choose to work for free.

My first job, I didn't know any better, and there was no internet to research labor laws at my fingertips. I was on a weekly salary, and I figured I put in about 48 hours a week or so. And the thing is, I was told by co-workers and community people that previous reporters had put in even more time (like 70 per week). My feeling was that since I was getting paid such a low salary anyways, I wasn't going to kill myself going to every Rotary dinner and every JV game for a paper that I wasn't going to be at for the rest of my life anyways.

And the funny thing was, a few years later, I found out that the paper was cited by the Dept. of Labor for its practices, and everyone ended up getting to punch a timeclock. Too little, too late for me. But still, it made me smile.

And my second job, I insisted on the OT pay, usually when I'd go over 42 or 43 hours. I understood that there were some busy weeks, and some light weeks that I put in 37 or 38 hours, and it evened up. But any more than the 42 or 43, I told my supervisor about it. Having a job to enjoy was very important to me. But having a few extra dollars in my pocket lessened my stress, too.

Sure, everyone makes their own decisions, and decides what's best for them in life. But I'd like to think that all of us on here are trying to tell Nighthawk to keep on an even keel. Life is a marathon, not a sprint.