We invented the washing machine, the dryer, the dishwasher, the microwave, frozen dinners, online grocery, the robot vacuum, and DoorDash. The married household with young kids spends more total hours on chores and childcare today than it did in 1965.
Dads went from under 10 hours a week to 28.7, the 300% everyone is quoting. Moms went from the high 40s to 42.5, a slide of five or six. Stack the two and the household total rises. A full century of labor-saving invention, and the modern family with toddlers logs more unpaid hours at home than the family that did the laundry by hand.
Here is the part that should stop you. Every one of those machines did its job. Core housework genuinely collapsed. Mothers do roughly half the cooking and cleaning they did in the 1960s. The dishwasher worked. The dryer worked. The hours got freed.
Then the culture spent them. The time the appliances saved flowed straight back into the children. This is the same law that governs every efficiency gain modern life has produced. Faster email bought us more email. Automation at home bought us a higher bar for what a parent owes a kid.
Watch what childcare even means now versus then. In 1965 a kid got sent outside until dinner. Supervision was loose, the neighborhood raised half of them, and a parent hovering every waking hour would have looked unwell. Today the job is continuous. Driving to practice, sitting through homework, managing screens, booking the enrichment, never leaving a small child unwatched. The one activity that exploded is the one no machine will ever touch. You cannot DoorDash attention.
So pull back and the chart stops being about fathers. It is a portrait of a species that refuses to bank its own productivity. Every tool we built to do less at home, we spent on doing more for the kids. The washing machine freed the afternoon. We handed the afternoon to the children and quietly renamed the old, looser way neglect.
We automated the housework and poured every saved minute into the one job we decided can never be done well enough.
My favorite @elonmusk quote that I often send friends:
Do not fear losing. “You will lose,” Musk says. “It will hurt the first fifty times. When you get used to losing, you will play each game with less emotion.” You will be more fearless, take more risks.
The trajectory of banditry in Nigeria is concerning, and if this trend continues unchecked, it's only a matter of time before its impact reaches Lagos. They've messed up the northeast, they've messed up the northwest, they've messed up the north central, and now they are in the southwest, and at the speed at which this is going they might be in Lagos in a couple of months. Southwest Governors should be prepared.
William Green once believed wealth came only through hard physical work and long hours of labor. After discovering the stock market and studying great investors, he realized true wealth is built through knowledge, patience, and intelligent investing.
Why so many global CEOs are Indian is the wrong question. The real question is what kind of system produces them.
This isn’t about Indians being genetically smarter or IITs magically creating genius. It’s only about selection pressure. India is not a talent factory. India is a high-pressure talent filter.
Most Indians are born into middle class or lower middle class families. There is no safety net, no fallback plan, no cushion. From the day you’re born there is an unspoken contract. Do well or the whole family stays stuck.
Education isn’t optional. It’s survival, now add population. Five to ten lakh people fighting for a few thousand seats. Even after years of preparation, effort doesn’t guarantee success. You still have to win against insane odds.
What comes out of this system is not creativity. It’s endurance. People who can sit for long hours, delay gratification for a decade, operate under pressure without breaking, and don’t feel entitled to comfort.
That profile matters - Large global companies don’t reward raw brilliance at the top. They reward people who can survive complexity, politics, scale, and boredom for 20 to 30 years straight.
That’s why Indian origin leaders show up disproportionately in operator roles. CEOs, presidents, heads of massive systems, not founders.
They didn’t rise because they were the loudest or flashiest. They rose because they had already been trained by a brutal system that rewards consistency over brilliance.
Compare that to a child born in a developed country. There is pressure, yes. But there is also a safety net. More options. Less existential fear. That environment is great for creativity and risk taking. It produces founders and innovators.
India produces survivors who become operators. That’s the difference most people miss. And let’s be clear, this system is not something to romanticize.
For every one person who makes it, millions burn out. Talent gets wasted. Mental health gets crushed. The system is inefficient and cruel. But it does one thing extremely well. It filters for people who can endure.
That’s why Indians don’t dominate early stage innovation globally, but they dominate long-run leadership in established systems.
So no, Indians aren’t exceptional because of IQ. They’re exceptional because they were never allowed to be comfortable.
The uncomfortable question is not why this works. The real question is whether this is the only way we should be producing leaders. And whether the cost is worth it.