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

101–110 of 368 posts

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

#101

Post by kerkeslager »

RHSeeger wrote: post #73
kerkeslager wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a pretty awful, irrelevant post. The current situation is bad for low income earners, because remote work is not available for most low income earners. Some people are doing better while others are being impacted. 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 whi…

The fact that some people are helped is not, by itself, a negative impact for the people that aren't being helped. The negatives (caused by the virus) are mitigated by the positive (of being able to work remotely) for some people. But that doesn't put the negatives at the feet of being able to work remotely. To put forth a really bad analogy... the fact that there is a cure for some cancers doesn't mean the cure is n…

Sure, it's not our fault as remote workers that in-person workers are suffering right now. I, for one remote worker, did not feel that anyone was accusing me of causing this inequality, but hey, if you really feel the need to get defensive about something nobody is accusing you of, then I'll be happy to say explicitly say that I'm not accusing remote workers of causing this inequality. Can we actually talk about real problems now?

The actual cause of inequality is people who control pay, unsurprisingly deciding to pay themselves vastly more than people who don't have the power to control their own pay. There's a reasonable argument to be said that the work of those who determine the pay is more valuable than their workers, but I don't think that we can argue that the proportions are justified. If workers are essential enough to risk their lives, then can we agree that they're essential enough to be participate in the American dream by being able to own their own homes and cars?

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

#102

Post by djsumdog »

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…

I thought Karens were the ones ratting people out for people getting illegal haircuts.

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

#103

Post by lmilcin »

vladvasiliu wrote: post #76
lmilcin wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would also say that even for people that can work remotely, low income may mean worse environment for work at home. Even with three kids I was able to quickly repurpose one of the rooms for home office and get everything needed to work comfortably from home. As my wife does not need to work we have less problem with kids staying at home. This is currently mostly discussion how to provide healthy environment for the…

> I would also say that even for people that can work remotely, low income may mean worse environment for work at home. Even with three kids I was able to quickly repurpose one of the rooms for home office and get everything needed to work comfortably from home. I would think that working from home all the time as a matter of course (as opposed to being forced to, like during a pandemic) would allow lower income peop…

It is different when you plan for it and when you are forced to do it.

I actually always wanted to work from home full time and have already worked for 2 years on a contract working fully from home (showing up at the office once per two or three months).

If I knew I would not be at a significant disadvantage searching for WFH contracts vs being available in a major city center I would gladly move outside city. I have three kids and I need to take into account that once I move outside city it might not be possible to move back.

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

#104

Post by claudeganon »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #27
ericwood wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure where you're getting the increased wages bit from; a significant number of companies have been forced to cut wages or furlough their employees. Maybe some people are getting raises, but that is very very far from the norm.

Grocery and supermarket chains all seem to be giving significant hazard pay. Furloughs and pay cuts are AFAIK heavily concentrated in the jobs that pay more than entry-level retail.

Every grocery store I’ve heard of is getting $2 an hour extra per paycheck. That’s $320 extra per month, before taxes, if you’re working full time.

That’s unlikely to cover the cost of getting tested for COVID-19, let alone any treatment or deductibles. Not sure how that qualifies as “significant.”

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

#105

Post by marcusverus »

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?

Inequality is only bad for low-income earners if you've been convinced that the economy is a zero-sum game. Nobody actually believes this, it just makes good copy for purposes of rabble-rousing.

If you think that wealth inequality is, itself, a bad thing, then ask yourself a simple question: If you create a software company that employs 200 employees making a median income of 125K, is that a good thing? But how can it be, when it has exacerbated wealth inequality?

In my humble opinion, inequality is bad only in the minds of people who want to fund their political wishlists with other people's money, and need to spin a narrative where not taking other people's money is morally wrong.

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

#106

Post by AnimalMuppet »

shlom22 wrote: post #91
go13 wrote: post #68

I'm afraid of these socialist trends and statements. 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 examp…

The West will go full communism, and it will make life better for all of us - no more rent, work or paying for groceries and everything will be taken care of so we can be creative in our time

If you think that the groceries are going to continue to show up on shelves in a world where nobody has to work, reality is going to hand you a very nasty surprise. If we're going to give stuff to everybody, somebody has to make the stuff. Merely redistributing money isn't going to solve that problem.

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

#107

Post by go13 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #106
shlom22 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The West will go full communism, and it will make life better for all of us - no more rent, work or paying for groceries and everything will be taken care of so we can be creative in our time

If you think that the groceries are going to continue to show up on shelves in a world where nobody has to work, reality is going to hand you a very nasty surprise. If we're going to give stuff to everybody, somebody has to make the stuff . Merely redistributing money isn't going to solve that problem.

i thought it was sarcasm, but apparently, based on downvotes, HN is full of left-leaning comrades.

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

#109

Post by BurningFrog »

marcosdumay wrote: post #92
pdonis wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At around the French one, England had a few. The USA had one too.

I don't think independence wars are on the same category. They are much more likely to be beneficial, and having a well defined enemy, much less likely to grow unbounded.

It's also an enemy that can go home when they lose.

Afterwards you don't have to choose between coexisting with them, or killing them.

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

#110

Post by aabeshou »

jlbnjmn wrote: post #94
sokoloff wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's particularly inscrutable. Pay a wage which is high enough to attract the talent that you need and which still leaves the company with a profit at the end. If there's a wide range that satisfies both of these conditions (and in markets with minimum wages, is legal to pay), then choose to offer a pay rate that best balances getting/keeping the talent you want vs the profitability. If someone else can…

What if the other person costs less because they're being paid under the table? Unfortunately, that's been the case in a lot of lower income and manual labor jobs. Construction and landscaping are notable examples. If the buyer only cares about cost, and the government adds 20-50% to the cost of wages, then the employer who bypasses the government thrives. The double standard that enables many of our labor challenges…

I agree that government is not automatically = good, it is corruptible. and I do think it sucks that computers are built in places with unethical labor laws.
Post reply on HN