Remote work can also be a source of socioeconomic inequality • Hacker News Board

Re: Remote work can also be a source of socioeconomic inequality

#11

Post by Cthulhu_ » Tue, May 12, 2020, 2:51 PM UTC

hirundo wrote: post #3

Since there is no limit on the ceiling, but there is a limit to the floor, things that increase economic opportunity tend to decrease equality. Things that reduce economic opportunity tend to increase equality. See e.g. Steven Pinker: "...the most effective ways of reducing inequality are epidemics, massive wars, violent revolutions and state collapse." https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/twenty-questions-steven-p...

In practice though, during this epidemic we're seeing inequality rise; over 10 million people lost their jobs, the stock market has boomed after a short dip, the middle class who can work from home is earning a living as usual, whilst the poor have had to blow through what little savings they have whilst angry landlords are breathing down their neck because they haven't gotten their rent yet. And while this is going on, some Karens (m/f) have taken up their guns demanding their hairdressers get back to work.

Re: Remote work can also be a source of socioeconomic inequality

#12

Post by Nasrudith » Tue, May 12, 2020, 2:52 PM UTC

sandworm101 wrote: post #5

>> "Benefits not available to low-income workers" A more accurate statement would be "Benefits not available to low-income jobs " There are plenty of jobs that simply cannot be done remotely. The more physical the job, the less it can be done remotely. A meat packer at a meat packing plant cannot work from home. A construction worker cannot build houses from a desk. (I'd add nursing, but a large amount of those jobs…

Even more accurate is "most low income jobs" call centers aren't exactly high income.

Anyway technically the physical jobs can be done remotely if latency isn't a concern but if it is sufficient to remote work the question usually becomes "Why not do the last 10% and fully automate it?"

Re: Remote work can also be a source of socioeconomic inequality

#13

Post by commandlinefan » Tue, May 12, 2020, 2:54 PM UTC

bzb3 wrote: post #8

ashtonkem wrote: post #4

The suggestion that governments can close the remote working gap is not very well thought out. A large percentage of low income work is service work that requires physical presence. You can’t make the typical burger joint remote friendly without automating all the jobs away.

They are miserable people who want to make things worse for remote workers because if everybody can't have something then nobody can.

... even if letting the people who can work remotely do so is a net win overall for everybody when you consider the reduced environmental impact.

Re: Remote work can also be a source of socioeconomic inequality

#14

Post by peterwoerner » Tue, May 12, 2020, 2:55 PM UTC

Nasrudith wrote: post #12

sandworm101 wrote: post #5

>> "Benefits not available to low-income workers" A more accurate statement would be "Benefits not available to low-income jobs " There are plenty of jobs that simply cannot be done remotely. The more physical the job, the less it can be done remotely. A meat packer at a meat packing plant cannot work from home. A construction worker cannot build houses from a desk. (I'd add nursing, but a large amount of those jobs…

Even more accurate is "most low income jobs" call centers aren't exactly high income. Anyway technically the physical jobs can be done remotely if latency isn't a concern but if it is sufficient to remote work the question usually becomes "Why not do the last 10% and fully automate it?"

Because typically the last 10% incurs 90% of the costs.

Re: Remote work can also be a source of socioeconomic inequality

#15

Post by ashtonkem » Tue, May 12, 2020, 2:56 PM UTC

commandlinefan wrote: post #13

bzb3 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are miserable people who want to make things worse for remote workers because if everybody can't have something then nobody can.

... even if letting the people who can work remotely do so is a net win overall for everybody when you consider the reduced environmental impact.

And if continued forever, reduced pressure on high housing costs, which currently hit lower income earners very hard.

Re: Remote work can also be a source of socioeconomic inequality

#16

Post by Nasrudith » Tue, May 12, 2020, 2:59 PM UTC

ashtonkem wrote: post #4

The suggestion that governments can close the remote working gap is not very well thought out. A large percentage of low income work is service work that requires physical presence. You can’t make the typical burger joint remote friendly without automating all the jobs away.

The most sane idea is infastructure availability as a limit but well skill/training is the usual bottlrneck.

Of course remote work may potentially indirectly boost in person work wages long term. Akin to how McDonalds needs to pay more than minimium wage than a gas station for unskilled labor due to the differing intensity and implcit perk of idle time in the latter case.

Re: Remote work can also be a source of socioeconomic inequality

#17

Post by Supermancho » Tue, May 12, 2020, 3:03 PM UTC

ashtonkem wrote: post #9

hirundo wrote: post #3

Since there is no limit on the ceiling, but there is a limit to the floor, things that increase economic opportunity tend to decrease equality. Things that reduce economic opportunity tend to increase equality. See e.g. Steven Pinker: "...the most effective ways of reducing inequality are epidemics, massive wars, violent revolutions and state collapse." https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/twenty-questions-steven-p...

I always argue caution about revolution to help the poor, as there are plenty of examples where revolution killed as many poor people as it did aristocrats. Possibly the least flame war worthy example is the French Revolution. While the popular image is of the great terror killing off nobles, the reality is that most of the killings in Paris were either politicians or unfortunate merchants who refused to sell their g…

> I always argue caution about revolution to help the poor, as there are plenty of examples where revolution killed as many poor people as it did aristocrats.

Std pareto curve. population of 100. 10 are aristocratic. 90 lower class. if you net equal losses, population 80 and you have increased equality. This is a simplification.

Re: Remote work can also be a source of socioeconomic inequality

#18

Post by Supermancho » Tue, May 12, 2020, 3:06 PM UTC

ipnon wrote: post #2

Would it be similar to say "factories worsen inequality by mostly helping high-income earners" (consider England during the Industrial Revolution)? New technology increases our productivity.

Historically, that's what happened. The average wage went down because less training was required despite more people being employed. Revenues went way up, quickly.

Re: Remote work can also be a source of socioeconomic inequality

#19

Post by User23 » Tue, May 12, 2020, 3:06 PM UTC

hirundo wrote: post #3

Since there is no limit on the ceiling, but there is a limit to the floor, things that increase economic opportunity tend to decrease equality. Things that reduce economic opportunity tend to increase equality. See e.g. Steven Pinker: "...the most effective ways of reducing inequality are epidemics, massive wars, violent revolutions and state collapse." https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/twenty-questions-steven-p...

We see a similar effect with many traits. For example with widespread malnutrition height is environmentally determined, but with good nutrition it’s mostly genetic.

Re: Remote work can also be a source of socioeconomic inequality

#20

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Tue, May 12, 2020, 3:11 PM UTC

Supermancho wrote: post #17

ashtonkem wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always argue caution about revolution to help the poor, as there are plenty of examples where revolution killed as many poor people as it did aristocrats. Possibly the least flame war worthy example is the French Revolution. While the popular image is of the great terror killing off nobles, the reality is that most of the killings in Paris were either politicians or unfortunate merchants who refused to sell their g…

> I always argue caution about revolution to help the poor, as there are plenty of examples where revolution killed as many poor people as it did aristocrats. Std pareto curve. population of 100. 10 are aristocratic. 90 lower class. if you net equal losses, population 80 and you have increased equality. This is a simplification.

Right, but they didn't net equal losses. The vast majority of people killed in the French Revolution were from the Third Estate.