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

51–60 of 368 posts

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

#51

Post by throwlaplace »

Dominisi wrote: post #44
throwlaplace wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nah, I think he is pointing out that if more remote work becomes the norm, urban areas will see an exodus to more rural, cheaper areas to live, and the demand for living spaces will decrease lowering the costs of rent in urban areas where most poor people live.

No he's saying that less commuting will help the environment and that that's worth sacrificing poor people's jobs. I'm saying I disagree because if the goal were maximizing some kind of utility function then I have an even better solution.

Re your point: obviously you're unfamiliar with the effects of white flight to the suburbs on inner cities. White people (read: wealthy people) have already made that migration in the 50s and 60s and took all of tax revenue with them, leading to places like Detroit and South side Chicago. It was only during the 2000s that they've migrated back to cities. Heading back to the suburbs will repeat history that's literally only 50 years old.

Edit: alright which part am I wrong about mr downvoter

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

#52

Post by HaloZero »

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.

Vietnam gained independence from France, might not be much better but I would say colonialism in general follows this. Or would that fall under "violent revolutions that throwing out a foreign oppressor".

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

#53

Post by spugody »

aabeshou wrote: post #49
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...

come on, it's really not that complicated. just pay people a fair wage.

Who defines what a fair wage is?

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

#54

Post by realbarack »

bradlys wrote: post #42
ashtonkem wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That’s purely a regulation issue. We could easily have more affordable housing by increasing supply. If you move people from one area to another without changing supply, you’re just gonna cause issues in the next area.

But if the "one area" is one of ~10 expensive cities and the "another" is 100s of smaller cities, suburbs and large towns, it's much easier to build to meet the change.

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

#55

Post by BurningFrog »

TomMarius wrote: post #39
BurningFrog wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My impression is that once it was clear the Soviet Union would not rescue the regime, it had lost it's power base, and was doomed.

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

#56

Post by nradov »

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…

Anyone who does classified work (including software developers) can't do it at home.

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

#57

Post by commandlinefan »

throwlaplace wrote: post #51
Dominisi wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, I think he is pointing out that if more remote work becomes the norm, urban areas will see an exodus to more rural, cheaper areas to live, and the demand for living spaces will decrease lowering the costs of rent in urban areas where most poor people live.

No he's saying that less commuting will help the environment and that that's worth sacrificing poor people's jobs. I'm saying I disagree because if the goal were maximizing some kind of utility function then I have an even better solution. Re your point: obviously you're unfamiliar with the effects of white flight to the suburbs on inner cities. White people (read: wealthy people) have already made that migration in…

> less commuting will help the environment and that that's worth sacrificing poor people's jobs

No, he's saying that if some people work from home and some other people don't, fewer people will commute, the environment we all share will benefit, but people who can't work from home can still do their jobs. (Source: am the one who said it)

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

#59

Post by throwlaplace »

commandlinefan wrote: post #57
throwlaplace wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No he's saying that less commuting will help the environment and that that's worth sacrificing poor people's jobs. I'm saying I disagree because if the goal were maximizing some kind of utility function then I have an even better solution. Re your point: obviously you're unfamiliar with the effects of white flight to the suburbs on inner cities. White people (read: wealthy people) have already made that migration in…

> less commuting will help the environment and that that's worth sacrificing poor people's jobs No, he's saying that if some people work from home and some other people don't, fewer people will commute, the environment we all share will benefit, but people who can't work from home can still do their jobs. (Source: am the one who said it)

Great. Now map out for me what happens to counties that get the bulk of their tax revenue from property taxes and then use that tax revenue to preserve and improve the environs of that county? Just think about it for two seconds: how good is park beautification on one side of the train tracks vs the other? Is that because of commuting or something else?

>, but people who can't work from home can still do their jobs

seeing as how service jobs can't be done from home this prompts the question: for whom exactly are these people going to be providing services when all of the remote workers have fled to the suburbs? so will they actually be able to "do their jobs"?

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

#60

Post by shlom22 »

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.

Pretty sure Mau handing out eviction notices to all those landlords helped China, did it not
Post reply on HN