It depends just how miserable it makes you, and the rest of the family's views. I wouldn't want my parent/spouse to be absolutely miserable just so I can have nicer things. Also a parent who is absolutely ground-down by their work might have psychological problems as a result which could negatively affect the child, or at minimum less time/energy to directly give to the family.
Most everyone only ever talks about parts 1-2, probably because that’s the beetle stuff. Everyone in his household is miserable and depressed and he is killing himself working hard to try to carry that burden for his family, just barely holding everything together, to the point it breaks him and he transforms.
Part 3 is his slow death and then a quick denouement takes place after dies, and it’s about how happy and healthy everyone else is after he’s stopped making himself ill trying to give them something they clearly are happier without.
The subtle thing is that the family becomes the main character in the second half of part 2 into part 3, once they start getting agency.
> it’s about how happy and healthy everyone else is after he’s stopped making himself ill trying to give them something they clearly are happier without.
You can even say that in the end everyone feels relief, like they got rid of a burden.
Most people, past or present, have had to do whatever labor they can to (hopefully) simply survive at the contextual standard of living. Some kids may love a parent who lets them go hungry so they can do work they don't dislike as much -- but the other adults around them probably won't have such a generous view, and I think rightly so.
