Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Remote work can also be a source of socioeconomic inequality

theconversation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 368 posts

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

#31

Post by nsxwolf »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #11
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…

It's the hairdressers that want to get back to work.

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

#32

Post by baron816 »

This is a pretty awful, clickbaity title. The implication is that remote work is bad for low-income earners, but that’s not the case. Inequality isn’t bad by itself. If some people are doing better without others being impacted, how could that be bad?

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

#33

Post by Natsu »

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...

This is why 'inequality' is such a bad thing to measure. Make sure the lowest rungs of society have enough to live on and the opportunity to move up.

There's one way to make everyone equal: kill everyone. Inasmuch as these revolutions have made people more equal, it has largely been due to how effectively they did exactly that.

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

#34

Post by throwaway2048 »

baron816 wrote: post #32

This is a pretty awful, clickbaity title. The implication is that remote work is bad for low-income earners, but that’s not the case. Inequality isn’t bad by itself. If some people are doing better without others being impacted, how could that be bad?

The problem is the assumption you are making is that others aren't being impacted.

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

#35

Post by throwlaplace »

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.

Is this the fallacy of goodharts law? Just straight up killing all the poor people is also a net overall win too but that's not what we want either.

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

#36

Post by freefriedrice »

baron816 wrote: post #32

This is a pretty awful, clickbaity title. The implication is that remote work is bad for low-income earners, but that’s not the case. Inequality isn’t bad by itself. If some people are doing better without others being impacted, how could that be bad?

The statement is sound: Inequality will always exist. But this worsens it because people with remote jobs earn more money by luck: they happened to pick the right job for a pandemic. Just like being born into a rich family means you will be rich without having to ever work for it, or even consider it.

The deeper question is: how does a civilized society respond to this? By saying: "You die now, loser, LOLZ", or through years of sufficient planning and preparation for emergency situations like this?

Personally, I think as a society we are long past the "die now loser" phase, and can definitely supply resources to even-out this temporary dip for the most impacted. However, I'm from the US, and 40% of the country wants to shoot me for believing anything but bootstraps and social darwinism.

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

#37

Post by xattt »

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…

I’ll chime in from the perspective of nursing. Desk nurses are the minority and are often the “holy grail” of the profession for people looking for better work-life balance.

Acute care employs the majority of RNs with less acute facilities (long-term care, community care) more likely to employ LPNs and unregulated care providers.

Half-jokingly, I’d love to join a start-up developing a remote work nurse-robot.

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

#38

Post by C1sc0cat »

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…

In the French revolution every one think it was mainly the aristos that went to the Guillotine.

In fact most of the deaths happened out in the countryside, Infernal Columns, Revolutionary Weddings (masss drownings of clergy) and the Revolt in the Vendee.

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

#39

Post by TomMarius »

BurningFrog wrote: post #26
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'd say it's very hard to find any violent revolutions that improved a society. It's pretty much a long line of tragedies. I count throwing out a foreign oppressor, like the American revolution or the Czech "velvet revolution" as a separate category. Those can be good.

The central point of the Velvet revolution was that it was non violent; also it was not about foreign oppresor primarily, we were oppresing ourselves very well without much help needed.
Post reply on HN