5 ms·

How exactly would you use technology to raise that limit? From my experience, direct 1:1 attention is the single most important thing for children. I would (an

How exactly would you use technology to raise that limit? From my experience, direct 1:1 attention is the single most important thing for children. I would (and am) actively paying for childcare not to use technology to increase that attention.

Terr_ 3y ago
One way to look at it is that socializing the children requires a particular amount of raw time from the humans being their interactive role-models. This means prices will tend to rise alongside the wages of those parental figures. I say "socializing" because I want to distinguish it from either imparting academic knowledge or providing for material needs/safety. I think those three categories are very different in terms of how easily--or wisely--they might be handled by automation. For example, a robot that changes diapers and stops your child from falling over cliffs: Awesome. An endlessly patient software tutor for teaching algebra: Cool. An AI that serves as virtual aunt/uncle/best-friend? Uh oh.
- codr7 3y ago
  Replacing teachers with software doesn't sound like a recipe for success to me. Simply adding distractions like tablets and laptops is already doing plenty of damage.
  - Terr_ 3y ago
    I agree, but that's because (good) teaching is also being a interactive model for those hungry little brains, and are needed when something occurs outside the specialization of the software. The "distractions" are harmful because suddenly kids are getting their world views and expectations from too-ficticious characters or "influencers" with perverse incentives.
hiAndrewQuinn 3y ago
If I knew that, I'd be making a lot of money by now. It's good that you have the option and disposable income to pay a premium for a private nanny or however else you're maximizing that direct 1:1 attention, instead of an ordinary daycare. For the rest of us, we mostly need someone to watch the kids while we're at work, and paying that much would probably make it cheaper overall to just watch them ourselves.
- foobarian 3y ago
  I've been puzzled at the economics of it. If it is cheaper for us to watch just 1 kid, where the heck is the money going in the daycare with N kids? Rent?
  - falseprofit 3y ago
    What do you mean when you say it’s cheaper for you to watch 1 kid? What’s the comparison?
    - foobarian 3y ago
      Comparison is to the wages the caretaker is giving up in order to be at home with the child. Of course there is a spectrum but it is a high bar.
      - falseprofit 3y ago
        I don’t think very many people are paying more for daycare than they make while their kids are in it.
        foobarian 3y ago
        Of course, those that make more don't, those that make less are likely to just DIY. And with those who make more, the ratio is still not even close to N, which makes the overhead interesting.
        falseprofit 3y ago
        What ratio?
  - loeg 3y ago
    Odd Lots did a very interesting podcast on the subject recently: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-economics-of-building-a-childcare-business/id1056200096?i=1000633627597 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-economics-of-build... Transcript: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-06/transcript-the-challenge-of-making-childcare-abundant-and-cheap https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-06/transcrip...
netsharc 3y ago
Random brainstorm from a childless man: cameras, cameras everywhere, and some sort of AR tool for the carer, so the kids get tamagochi-esque meters. Beep, camera 4 spotted kid 7 needing interaction. Beep kid 5 is acting cranky, last drink 26 minutes ago, while you're at it refill kid 13's water bottle. Yeah, very dystopian... Bonus if the AR overlay allows eye contact, we don't want the kids staring into the soulless face of an Apple Vision Pro ;)
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
This is a huge problem. Childcare is one field where productivity is decreasing due to regulations that keep pushing down child-teacher ratios. They are basically told that they can only grow more expensive (since productivity can’t increase while labor keeps becoming more valuable) as time goes on. Pretty soon only the rich will be able to afford it (and that’s already true in many regions).
- antanitis 3y ago
  [flagged]

Terr_ 3y ago

One way to look at it is that socializing the children requires a particular amount of raw time from the humans being their interactive role-models. This means prices will tend to rise alongside the wages of those parental figures. I say "socializing" because I want to distinguish it from either imparting academic knowledge or providing for material needs/safety. I think those three categories are very different in terms of how easily--or wisely--they might be handled by automation. For example, a robot that changes diapers and stops your child from falling over cliffs: Awesome. An endlessly patient software tutor for teaching algebra: Cool. An AI that serves as virtual aunt/uncle/best-friend? Uh oh.

codr7 3y ago
Replacing teachers with software doesn't sound like a recipe for success to me. Simply adding distractions like tablets and laptops is already doing plenty of damage.
- Terr_ 3y ago
  I agree, but that's because (good) teaching is also being a interactive model for those hungry little brains, and are needed when something occurs outside the specialization of the software. The "distractions" are harmful because suddenly kids are getting their world views and expectations from too-ficticious characters or "influencers" with perverse incentives.

hiAndrewQuinn 3y ago

If I knew that, I'd be making a lot of money by now. It's good that you have the option and disposable income to pay a premium for a private nanny or however else you're maximizing that direct 1:1 attention, instead of an ordinary daycare. For the rest of us, we mostly need someone to watch the kids while we're at work, and paying that much would probably make it cheaper overall to just watch them ourselves.

foobarian 3y ago
I've been puzzled at the economics of it. If it is cheaper for us to watch just 1 kid, where the heck is the money going in the daycare with N kids? Rent?
- falseprofit 3y ago
  What do you mean when you say it’s cheaper for you to watch 1 kid? What’s the comparison?
  - foobarian 3y ago
    Comparison is to the wages the caretaker is giving up in order to be at home with the child. Of course there is a spectrum but it is a high bar.
    - falseprofit 3y ago
      I don’t think very many people are paying more for daycare than they make while their kids are in it.
      - foobarian 3y ago
        Of course, those that make more don't, those that make less are likely to just DIY. And with those who make more, the ratio is still not even close to N, which makes the overhead interesting.
        falseprofit 3y ago
        What ratio?
- loeg 3y ago
  Odd Lots did a very interesting podcast on the subject recently: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-economics-of-building-a-childcare-business/id1056200096?i=1000633627597 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-economics-of-build... Transcript: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-06/transcript-the-challenge-of-making-childcare-abundant-and-cheap https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-06/transcrip...

netsharc 3y ago

Random brainstorm from a childless man: cameras, cameras everywhere, and some sort of AR tool for the carer, so the kids get tamagochi-esque meters. Beep, camera 4 spotted kid 7 needing interaction. Beep kid 5 is acting cranky, last drink 26 minutes ago, while you're at it refill kid 13's water bottle. Yeah, very dystopian... Bonus if the AR overlay allows eye contact, we don't want the kids staring into the soulless face of an Apple Vision Pro ;)

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

This is a huge problem. Childcare is one field where productivity is decreasing due to regulations that keep pushing down child-teacher ratios. They are basically told that they can only grow more expensive (since productivity can’t increase while labor keeps becoming more valuable) as time goes on. Pretty soon only the rich will be able to afford it (and that’s already true in many regions).

antanitis 3y ago
[flagged]