5 ms·

This is one reason why we have a state, which collect taxes and can provide those services.

by tehabe 2y ago

dannyobrien 2y ago
well, except for the fact that, as the article states, it doesn't scale. Or rather, it scales poorly: the quality of care provided by a nation state is going to differ in degree and quality compared to the 1:1 care that humans probably need (and certainly traumatised humans). I'm not sure this comes as a surprise to anyone except for those who have had no interaction with state-provided social services. I'd also say that a level of care that does not reach to that 1:1 standard is still appreciably better than no care, which may be what one might otherwise receive. The open question is can we work out better, decentralized ways of providing support that take advantage of the new social technologies that we've developed since the construction of the modern state and its welfare services in the late 19th and 20th centuries.
- worldsayshi 2y ago
  Care doesn't scale, but a lot of activities around care should be scalable. A caregiver can be helped so they can spend as little time as possible on auxiliary tasks like admin or logistics.
  - dannyobrien 2y ago
    I agree! (Not adding much info here, but I wanted to show that you made me think, and I appreciated your contribution to my thinking and others!)
- zeroCalories 2y ago
  I don't think there is any contradiction here. Government care can work, but it simply cannot benefit from economies of scale. Gonna need to double the income tax to pay for elders that have been abandoned by their children.
  - Uvix 2y ago
    You mean the elders who failed to take care of themselves, assuming someone else would do it for them.
    - em-bee 2y ago
      which has been the norm for as long as humanity existed
    - bccdee 2y ago
      That's how getting old works, yes. You lose the ability to take care of yourself and begin to depend on others. Do you really think infirmity is something that can be avoided with the right grindset?
      - zeroCalories 2y ago
        He means that they messed up by investing in their children and providing them a good life instead of putting everything in an index fund. They didn't realize the rug pull they were about to eat.
- tehabe 2y ago
  Just because the government does something, doesn't mean it has to be centralised. Eventually the care has to be given from one human to another human. On the other hand, it shouldn't matter where you live to receive care or how good the care is. And the week in which private companies will be able to provide this, is the same week which has two Tuesdays.
KeplerBoy 2y ago
Care is not something that is magically performed by the state or money. At some point someone has to physically wash and feed the elderly in the retirement homes. If past governments or cultural environments messed up demographics, states might end up with a significant fraction (Germany already has 22% aged 65+) of the population in need of that care, which requires another significant share of the population to just do that instead of producing actual stuff. This will either get ugly in one way or another or we will need scalable tech solutions.
- Gare 2y ago
  Or importing even more foreign workers. Which I'm not strictly against, but does come with it's own set of challenges.
  - FirmwareBurner 2y ago
    >Or importing even more foreign workers. Except you can't force foreign workers to do shit jobs the locals don't want. They're not slaves.
    - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
      They don't need to be forced. They come here willing to do those jobs. After all, they're not slaves.
      - FirmwareBurner 2y ago
        Exactly. They come willingly but you can't force them to wipe your old age ass once they're here.
        Gare 2y ago
        Actually... they kinda can? If they don't work, they get deported back. Also they are in debt to the agency that got them here. It's a hair above modern slavery the way it currently works, especially in EU countries with more... lax standards than Germany.
intended 2y ago
This is not the same thing. The state is ideally suited to manufacture public goods, more efficiently than private enterprise. That means armies, judiciaries, policing municipalities, governance amongst others. They address issues like management of the commons. This does not translate into scaled care - care for orphans (from the article) still needs large numbers of skilled manpower, which is in short supply across the world. These services are also often underfunded, since they are not really a first class citizen for voters. Voters today, are also deeply targeted by emotional campaigns and identity campaigns, since that is the current political state of the art. The state can be efficient, but some things don’t scale unless they are also resourced correctly. Such services will also be amongst the first to cut, since “X will render it obsolete”, is a promise as old as time, and aren’t directly tied to overall societal survival. Compared to something like defense / emergency funding
- tehabe 2y ago
  My argument is, that care is a public good. There will never be a situation in which care can fund itself. To fund care is a political decision and when the decision is made to to not fund it or leave to a market or private enterprises it will fail, because private enterprises need something which will eventually scale.
- tightbookkeeper 2y ago
  > The state is ideally suited to manufacture public goods, more efficiently The government does not provide a more efficient military or education. It compels individuals to pay for something which is in the collective good, but not their personal interest.
  - intended 2y ago
    > The government does not provide a more efficient military or education This is news to me, or a novel use of economic terminology. Source?
    - tightbookkeeper 2y ago
jimbokun 2y ago
Doing it by a state does not make it magically scale in any way shape or form. You still need something like one-to-one or one-to-a-few for care work to be effective. Trying to provide it through the government does absolutely nothing to change this fact.

This is one reason why we have a state, which collect taxes and can provide those services.

by tehabe 2y ago

This is one reason why we have a state, which collect taxes and can provide those services.

well, except for the fact that, as the article states, it doesn't scale. Or rather, it scales poorly: the quality of care provided by a nation state is going to differ in degree and quality compared to the 1:1 care that humans probably need (and certainly traumatised humans). I'm not sure this comes as a surprise to anyone except for those who have had no interaction with state-provided social services. I'd also say that a level of care that does not reach to that 1:1 standard is still appreciably better than no care, which may be what one might otherwise receive. The open question is can we work out better, decentralized ways of providing support that take advantage of the new social technologies that we've developed since the construction of the modern state and its welfare services in the late 19th and 20th centuries.

worldsayshi 2y ago
Care doesn't scale, but a lot of activities around care should be scalable. A caregiver can be helped so they can spend as little time as possible on auxiliary tasks like admin or logistics.
- dannyobrien 2y ago
  I agree! (Not adding much info here, but I wanted to show that you made me think, and I appreciated your contribution to my thinking and others!)
zeroCalories 2y ago
I don't think there is any contradiction here. Government care can work, but it simply cannot benefit from economies of scale. Gonna need to double the income tax to pay for elders that have been abandoned by their children.
- Uvix 2y ago
  You mean the elders who failed to take care of themselves, assuming someone else would do it for them.
  - em-bee 2y ago
    which has been the norm for as long as humanity existed
  - bccdee 2y ago
    That's how getting old works, yes. You lose the ability to take care of yourself and begin to depend on others. Do you really think infirmity is something that can be avoided with the right grindset?
    - zeroCalories 2y ago
      He means that they messed up by investing in their children and providing them a good life instead of putting everything in an index fund. They didn't realize the rug pull they were about to eat.
tehabe 2y ago
Just because the government does something, doesn't mean it has to be centralised. Eventually the care has to be given from one human to another human. On the other hand, it shouldn't matter where you live to receive care or how good the care is. And the week in which private companies will be able to provide this, is the same week which has two Tuesdays.

KeplerBoy 2y ago

Care is not something that is magically performed by the state or money. At some point someone has to physically wash and feed the elderly in the retirement homes. If past governments or cultural environments messed up demographics, states might end up with a significant fraction (Germany already has 22% aged 65+) of the population in need of that care, which requires another significant share of the population to just do that instead of producing actual stuff. This will either get ugly in one way or another or we will need scalable tech solutions.

Gare 2y ago
Or importing even more foreign workers. Which I'm not strictly against, but does come with it's own set of challenges.
- FirmwareBurner 2y ago
  >Or importing even more foreign workers. Except you can't force foreign workers to do shit jobs the locals don't want. They're not slaves.
  - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
    They don't need to be forced. They come here willing to do those jobs. After all, they're not slaves.
    - FirmwareBurner 2y ago
      Exactly. They come willingly but you can't force them to wipe your old age ass once they're here.
      - Gare 2y ago
        Actually... they kinda can? If they don't work, they get deported back. Also they are in debt to the agency that got them here. It's a hair above modern slavery the way it currently works, especially in EU countries with more... lax standards than Germany.

intended 2y ago

This is not the same thing. The state is ideally suited to manufacture public goods, more efficiently than private enterprise. That means armies, judiciaries, policing municipalities, governance amongst others. They address issues like management of the commons. This does not translate into scaled care - care for orphans (from the article) still needs large numbers of skilled manpower, which is in short supply across the world. These services are also often underfunded, since they are not really a first class citizen for voters. Voters today, are also deeply targeted by emotional campaigns and identity campaigns, since that is the current political state of the art. The state can be efficient, but some things don’t scale unless they are also resourced correctly. Such services will also be amongst the first to cut, since “X will render it obsolete”, is a promise as old as time, and aren’t directly tied to overall societal survival. Compared to something like defense / emergency funding

tehabe 2y ago
My argument is, that care is a public good. There will never be a situation in which care can fund itself. To fund care is a political decision and when the decision is made to to not fund it or leave to a market or private enterprises it will fail, because private enterprises need something which will eventually scale.
tightbookkeeper 2y ago
> The state is ideally suited to manufacture public goods, more efficiently The government does not provide a more efficient military or education. It compels individuals to pay for something which is in the collective good, but not their personal interest.
- intended 2y ago
  > The government does not provide a more efficient military or education This is news to me, or a novel use of economic terminology. Source?
  - tightbookkeeper 2y ago

jimbokun 2y ago

Doing it by a state does not make it magically scale in any way shape or form. You still need something like one-to-one or one-to-a-few for care work to be effective. Trying to provide it through the government does absolutely nothing to change this fact.