5 ms·

Economies of scale. The kids work together, play together, teach each other, and parents facilitate (often leading to interesting conversations like the one in

Economies of scale. The kids work together, play together, teach each other, and parents facilitate (often leading to interesting conversations like the one in the article). It's actually probably a little easier than having 5.

pavel_lishin 8y ago
A coworker keeps telling me (I'm a parent of one, and intend to stay that way) that having a big family like his is easier, since the older kids can take care of the younger kids. Which sounds totally plausible and correct, 'cept it'll take you awhile to get up to that sort of economy of scale :P
- hycaria 8y ago
  How fun that must be to take care of siblings, wow, youth enjoyed for sure.
  - pavel_lishin 8y ago
    Yes, of course, having younger siblings is exactly the same as being a full-time live-in babysitter. Did you know older siblings don't even get paid for the work they do?
- insensible 8y ago
  This being Hacker News, we can talk about it in terms of graphs, right? Let's look at the sociogram when one parent is present. The transition from zero to one is of course world-changing. But at one child, 100% of the connections in the sociogram connect to a given parent: zero economy of scale. At two children they have each other, but that is only 1/3 of the children's connections when one parent is present. At three, we're up to 50% of the connections that are child-to-child. At this point the sociogram is rich enough to become interesting. Four => 60%. Eight => 77.8%.
  - pavel_lishin 8y ago
    > At this point the sociogram is rich enough to become interesting. But the family is poor enough to become boring! (I can't resist a good pun.) Anyway, kids aren't raised in isolation with their parents. Our two year old tot already has two kids that I would consider her friends; she mentions them when she's home, and she prefers spending time with them to spending time with other kids.
    - insensible 8y ago
      Ask any member of a large, poor family whether they would trade (life improvement costing $XX,XXX) for having fewer children in the family. Life is beautiful and easily beats filthy lucre. It's worth the struggle. People lose sight of this.
      - pavel_lishin 8y ago
        Sure. Can I ask the how many more kids they plan on having? Can I ask you the same question? Can I ask why that number is less than 16?
        insensible 8y ago
        I spot two assumptions in your comment: 1) that families plan the number of children they have, and 2) that this planned number is some number lower than 16. Yours is not the only worldview. And with birth rates plunging worldwide, many now trending below sustainable levels, who will provide you with healthcare and other services in old age?
- opinionator1 8y ago
  It's not wrong, but it's a real dick move toward the older kids.
  - insensible 8y ago
    It can be done that way, but there are alternatives. One family I know, the kids actually sometimes quarrel to be allowed to take care of the youngers. In our family, we have "chore points" that are mutually negotiated, and babysitting is a favorite way to get one's points racked up easily.

pavel_lishin 8y ago

A coworker keeps telling me (I'm a parent of one, and intend to stay that way) that having a big family like his is easier, since the older kids can take care of the younger kids. Which sounds totally plausible and correct, 'cept it'll take you awhile to get up to that sort of economy of scale :P

hycaria 8y ago
How fun that must be to take care of siblings, wow, youth enjoyed for sure.
- pavel_lishin 8y ago
  Yes, of course, having younger siblings is exactly the same as being a full-time live-in babysitter. Did you know older siblings don't even get paid for the work they do?
insensible 8y ago
This being Hacker News, we can talk about it in terms of graphs, right? Let's look at the sociogram when one parent is present. The transition from zero to one is of course world-changing. But at one child, 100% of the connections in the sociogram connect to a given parent: zero economy of scale. At two children they have each other, but that is only 1/3 of the children's connections when one parent is present. At three, we're up to 50% of the connections that are child-to-child. At this point the sociogram is rich enough to become interesting. Four => 60%. Eight => 77.8%.
- pavel_lishin 8y ago
  > At this point the sociogram is rich enough to become interesting. But the family is poor enough to become boring! (I can't resist a good pun.) Anyway, kids aren't raised in isolation with their parents. Our two year old tot already has two kids that I would consider her friends; she mentions them when she's home, and she prefers spending time with them to spending time with other kids.
  - insensible 8y ago
    Ask any member of a large, poor family whether they would trade (life improvement costing $XX,XXX) for having fewer children in the family. Life is beautiful and easily beats filthy lucre. It's worth the struggle. People lose sight of this.
    - pavel_lishin 8y ago
      Sure. Can I ask the how many more kids they plan on having? Can I ask you the same question? Can I ask why that number is less than 16?
      - insensible 8y ago
        I spot two assumptions in your comment: 1) that families plan the number of children they have, and 2) that this planned number is some number lower than 16. Yours is not the only worldview. And with birth rates plunging worldwide, many now trending below sustainable levels, who will provide you with healthcare and other services in old age?
opinionator1 8y ago
It's not wrong, but it's a real dick move toward the older kids.
- insensible 8y ago
  It can be done that way, but there are alternatives. One family I know, the kids actually sometimes quarrel to be allowed to take care of the youngers. In our family, we have "chore points" that are mutually negotiated, and babysitting is a favorite way to get one's points racked up easily.