61–70 of 368 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesnt have to be equal, just outside the existing curve. Again, conceptually, 1:9 from 100 is an improvement for some abstract measure of equality.
Given the fact that everyone ended up worse off after, this is kind of a pointless thing to attempt to point out.
Just skimming this, it seems the french and the entire world was left better-off actually
Laptops and smart phones are everywhere these days, regardless of income level, so accessing remote work is not a problem. I think the only reason remote work might hurt low income people is due to lack of business owners taking advantage of available remote workers.
Access to technology is not the issue. Low income jobs are as a general rule more physical than higher paying jobs. You can't remotely do physical labor.
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?
You're not wrong about a hypothetical situation in which low income earners aren't impacted, but your post reads a lot like using that hypothetical situation to draw attention away from problems which exist in reality.
Laptops and smart phones are everywhere these days, regardless of income level, so accessing remote work is not a problem. I think the only reason remote work might hurt low income people is due to lack of business owners taking advantage of available remote workers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Laptops and smart phones are everywhere these days, regardless of income level, so accessing remote work is not a problem. I think the only reason remote work might hurt low income people is due to lack of business owners taking advantage of available remote workers.
I think less can be done remotely than you think. HN can be a bit of a bubble, it's important to remember that our sector is relatively small in terms of headcount.
>> "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?"
We all talk about robots, but I have yet to see ANY robot remotely capable of the simplest jobs. At my work, an exaust fan failed overnight. Replacing it is a simple task: a few screws and some basic wiring. Latency isn't the issue. There are no robots with the dexterity to even consider such a job. I'd be amazed if one exists that is capable of navigating the ladders and corners needed to get to the fan. (Flying isn't an option. We are near an airport.)
Hopefully, there will not be any new "revolution" where 'low-income' will vote for some populist who will make everyone "equal".
And by "everyone" they normally mean middle/upper middle class because ultra-wealthy people operate in a bit different world than the rest of people.
AND:
Can't low earners take those high-earners who work remotely (programmers, for example) as an example and follow their path rather than complain about inequality? I had a mate who was a good example for me at some point which allowed me to progress in life. What would happen if i metaphorically i asked the government to get part of his salary to help me to be "equal"? Is this discovered life path not a valuable resource and example?
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.
I am a remote worker. I'm certainly not for making my own life worse.
Surely we can see a mismatch, however, when there are people who are considered essential enough to risk their lives, but not considered essential enough to be paid enough to own their own home or car. I think there are a lot of non-remote jobs which can't be done remotely, but I do think we could pay those workers more.
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?
Put another way: if one group's salary averages $150,000/year while another's averages $40,000/year, and the first gets annual raises while the second stays mostly flat… can you see why that's bad?