Hacker News Reader

Comment by jacob2484 | Hacker News Reader

I support the initiative, but it's sadly only a matter of time until one of the social workers is slashed/shot at by someone they're trying to help.

View on HN

They've been doing this for 30 years in Eugene without issue.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/this-town-of-170000-replac...

> Per self-reported data, CAHOOTS workers responded to 24,000 calls in 2019 -- about 20% of total dispatches. About 150 of those required police backup.

Ten percent of police calls are about mental illness, but only 2% of attacks on officers occur during responses to incidents involving a person with a mental illness. This role is probably much safer than being a police officer, which is already only the 13th most dangerous job. When an incident occurs, it will almost certainly be used as an excuse to criticize the program when in reality the job is safe compared to many others.

That's why most programs like this send both a social worker and police officer. The social worker initially takes the lead but if things escalate past the point that the social worker is able to de-escalate the police are there to intervene.

They’re professionals. I think they’re aware that there are risks involved on this job.

The brutal truth is that social services for the dysfunctional elements of society will almost certainly involve more risk than what “regular” people will face. I hope that they’re compensation reflects that additional risk.

Compensation for risk occurs through the same mechanism as compensation for everything: the supply and demand curves. This creates outcomes where the compensation for risk occurs at a deeper level, co-mingled in with many other factors.

I'm sure many people don't agree with this and think the absolute riskiness of a job should factor into compensation irrespective of the risk preferences of the labor market as a whole.

I don't really agree and generally contend that markets (labor or otherwise) are the most efficient and elegant solution for pricing anything. At the very least, if a better and more robust system exists, it hasn't been discovered as of yet.

When the government is the one doing the hiring, they don’t have to pay market rates. They can decide add on hazard pay.

This system already exists - it’s why police get better pay and benefits compared to jobs with similar education requirements and levels of danger in the private sector (e.g. delivery drivers). Why couldn’t that hazard pay be extended to these psychiatric responders?

Yes they have to pay market rates.

Suppose they don't. They declare the job to be worth $2/hour, which they can do because minimum wage is just a law the government can change. Nobody takes the job. Now what?

Those job openings go unfilled forever, literally forever, until the government decides to pay market rate.

The only way to pay below market rate is conscription. The government could draft people, forcing them to do the job. If people are free to leave, they are getting market rate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com