Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Care Doesn't Scale

stevenscrawls.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 382 posts

Re: Care Doesn't Scale

#171

Post by ToucanLoucan »

vegetablepotpie wrote: post #163
bumby wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your reply seems focused on size, but this line caught my attention: > trusting them to make the right decisions. I'm wondering if trust isn't the real issue. For example, wouldn't a large high-trust organization be able to provide good care? Or is there something intrinsic to scale (e.g. diffusion of responsibility) that makes "high-trust" and "large organization" incompatible?

Not OP, but orgs that scale usually rely on metrics. It's metrics that are easier to measure, not the one that measure system performance (i.e. lines of code written per day, points closed per sprint) that get selected. Then management lampoon workers for not meeting those metrics (they need to prove their doing something, and can't lose control), regardless of how the system is performing. So trust erodes.

I honestly think most orgs would leap forward considerably (with some pain) by doing a severe reduction in middle management, basically making them prove why they are actually providing value, and removing them if they aren't.

Tons and tons of middle managers do absolutely FUCK ALL in terms of delivering product, meeting goals, and serving customers.

Re: Care Doesn't Scale

#172

Post by bell-cot »

harimau777 wrote: post #149
bell-cot wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True-ish. But try talking to some old folks, about the vastly reduced scale of such volunteer work since (say) the 1950's. That "voluntary unpaid" stuff would include religious organizations, civic groups, housewives, ...

It seems to me that capitalism discourages that behavior. If the system is setup to be transactional, and you can't rely on others reciprocating altruism if you need it; then it seems like engaging in altruism would be for suckers.

True-ish. But in older-fashioned communities - long-term stable, extended families usually present, participation in many altruistic groups and activities are established norms, everybody's noses not buried in web browsers and smart phones - there's this thing called "social capital". And, as a generality, it's at least as important as the monetary kind.

Re: Care Doesn't Scale

#173

Post by alamortsubite »

jen20 wrote: post #104
alamortsubite wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would like the option to die painlessly before I end up needing a robot to change my diaper. My dad has Parkinson's and needs a human to change his diaper. If he had the option of a robot, I bet he'd take it. Not a painless die now option, though. As I write, where he is it's 8 o'clock in the morning and he's watching an old Larry David and eating an ice cream cone while my mom gets ready for them to go to breakf…

That’s the idea of an option. Great if it works for him, but having spent a lot of time with Pieter Hintjens (of AMQP and ZeroMQ fame) before he chose the time of his own passing from recurrent cancer, the notion that this is not allowed in order to appease religious zealots is simply barbaric.

I'm not sure you replied to the right post, but religious zealots don't watch Larry David.

Re: Care Doesn't Scale

#174

Post by paulryanrogers »

moolcool wrote: post #117
paulryanrogers wrote: post #50

Strange definition of "one to one". It sounds more like 4-to-1 to me.

This is a semantics argument which doesn't really challenge his central point.

It muddies the point, because having 1 worker at a time (watching 4 kids) isn't really 1-to-1. And doing 24h shifts means kids have a different caretaker quite often, which complicates conflict resolution and other things that may span days.

Regardless, it's probably the best they can do and likely far better than orphanages with 20+ kids per adult. So the core message about scaling does stand. Even if the ratio described is actually worse and less scalable.

Re: Care Doesn't Scale

#175

Post by paulryanrogers »

dagw wrote: post #51
paulryanrogers wrote: post #50

Strange definition of "one to one". It sounds more like 4-to-1 to me.

There are 4 workers taking turns looking after 4 kids. So while at any given time 1 worker is looking after 4 kids, you need 4 workers to cover all the shifts. Thus one-to-one

That's a very odd framing. So it works out to one worker per one shift/day? Wouldn't that be true if there were 10 or 20 kids yet still 1 worker per shift?

Re: Care Doesn't Scale

#176

Post by paulryanrogers »

watwut wrote: post #69
paulryanrogers wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The quiver full movement is certainly testing the limits.

I would argue that they found it and that kids are not getting that individual attention they need.

Worse, the elder kids are forced into parenting their younger siblings.

Re: Care Doesn't Scale

#177

Post by hedvig23 »

steveBK123 wrote: post #132
avhception wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a story on HN a while ago that I can't seem to remember the title of. It was something along the lines of "The optimal amount of slack in an organization is not zero", or something like that. The argument was that, since it's impossible to plan for every eventuality, you need a certain amount of slack capacity in order to retain some flexibility. And that by always using 100% capacity, we end up dysfunction…

It was the same problem for JIT supply chains falling apart during COVID. It's very hard to sell slack to management and so in "well run organizations" it ends up trending towards zero. And then everyone is surprised at the resulting catastrophes.

It's pretty simple no, the model that is reasonable and antifragile is within our grasp, a model that includes degrees of error more than it reifies hewing towards 0 carrying costs. It's more the good will and good faith across the board to use that known simple math, as sneaky monkey minds in our midst see that if they defect they can win some edge in the short term (and again, a better model shows the true utility and total harmed effect) and then it's a race to the bottom and a world of basically the prisoners dilemma. Making that thinking anathema in human culture should be the focus. I don't know that a grass roots effort could out-compete existing networks of power and influence, nor that a total reset of players is possible either.

Re: Care Doesn't Scale

#178

Post by bccdee »

username332211 wrote: post #83
kubb wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totalitarian regimes often uphold traditional values like family as a means of control, promoting unity and loyalty to the state-yet they’ll redefine these values whenever it suits their ideology.

That's not really true. Marxism-Leninism famously sought to abolish the family and the Soviet union performed quite a few experiments in communal rearing of children in it's early years. The reason why totalitarian regimes end up promoting traditional values relations is that to them the only imperative superior to ideology is survival. There is a reason the Soviet Union backed off from it's repression of religion in…

> the only imperative superior to ideology is survival

I think it's more that well-meaning ideologues are easily replaced by self-serving pragmatists in post-revolutionary turmoil. There were plenty of Marxists in Russia vying for power, in the early days. Lenin didn't win based on ideological purity; he won based on political strength. And say what you will about Lenin—he did have beliefs and he did have a real ideology. Stalin only cared about Stalin, and he claimed to believe whatever was convenient for him in the moment.

Re: Care Doesn't Scale

#179

Post by tomjen3 »

delichon wrote: post #123

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chuses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens. -- Adam Smith Care doesn't scale but self-inte…

Capitalism is a fantastic solution to the problem of biological wants and physical limitations.

But that does not really change the issue that you need about 1:1 caregiver per child. It just means you get them much more effectively than any other system.

Re: Care Doesn't Scale

#180

Post by paulryanrogers »

cj wrote: post #64
paulryanrogers wrote: post #50

Strange definition of "one to one". It sounds more like 4-to-1 to me.

4 people taking care of 4 kids 24/7 in 24 hour shifts. From article: > To get that individualized care, though, they had four social workers and four children. One-to-one. [...] But you couldn’t stray that far from one-to-one without changing the nature of the experience, without industrializing it to the point that individual care is lost. I don't think you need the ratio of worker:child to be 1:1 in order to provid…

Well 1-1 care for any given child at an average of 25% of the time. Which for social work is probably better than most alternatives, yet not as good as having a parent per one or two kids.

Anyway, I don't mean to nit pick. Everyone has to know their limits, and I'm sad to admit that I found I can barely handle two kids with two adults. And families managing 5+ kids strike me as over natural+healthy limits, unless they've a large extended family (who have capacity to help).

Post reply on HN