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

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

#111

Post by andrey_utkin » Tue, May 12, 2020, 5:36 PM UTC

sandworm101 wrote: post #67

Nasrudith wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?"

>> Anyway technically the physical jobs can be done remotely if latency isn't a concern 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 tha…

What you describe is not a "simplest job", definitely not for a robot, but also for an unskilled labour.

I see the way to handle this sort of situation is to embrace "whole node replacement" tactic. I suppose this is already happening in some cases. "Repair robots" is one possible way to accomplish that, but it's not the only way, and in most cases not the cheapest available way.

For example, if a fan has failed in your work laptop, you don't call the technician to fix it in place, you request a replacement laptop and post your failed laptop to your IT support facility.

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

#112

Post by jahaja » Tue, May 12, 2020, 5:38 PM UTC

spugody wrote: post #53

aabeshou wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Who defines what a fair wage is?

Whatever enables a dignified existence. It doesn't require much imagination to figure out what's included in that.

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

#113

Post by kerkeslager » Tue, May 12, 2020, 5:38 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #95

kerkeslager wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two ways you can close the gap between low-income, in-person work, and high-income, remote work: 1. The straw man you're suggesting: get rid of remote work. This is obviously not universally possible. 2. Pay in-person workers more. Because you know, if someone is essential enough to die for their work, maybe they are also essential enough to be included in the American dream of owning their own home and car…

> Pay in-person workers more. Which in turn means whatever those workers are providing will cost more. In most of the jobs under discussion, labor costs are a large fraction of overall costs, so raising labor costs means making the overall good or service more expensive. And nobody wants to pay more--not even the workers themselves, who are also paying for similar services from other workers. You left out the actual…

> Which in turn means whatever those workers are providing will cost more.

That's one possibility. Obviously it's one we should avoid. Yes, we have noticed the skulls[1]. Please give me the courtesy of not assuming you've noticed obvious things that I haven't.

Another possibility, is we stop paying people at the top literally millions of times as much money as the people at the bottom. An easy way to do this would be to cap income of the top earners in a company at, say, 1,000 times income of their lowest-paid workers.

Reagan liked to say that there's a trickle down effect--that a rising tide lifts all boats. But Reagan also said, "Trust, but verify." So surely fans of Reagan won't object to making sure that profits do actually trickle down?

Neither of the solutions you propose work:

> 3. Increase the productivity of individual workers. That means the workers are producing more value per unit of work.

This doesn't help workers in any way, because CEOs will just pat themselves on the back for increasing productivity, lay off the no-longer-needed workers, and pay themselves more. There's no incentive for them to pass on any of these profits to their workers.

> 4. Make the workers entrepreneurs. That means they are now owners of the capital constituted by their increased productivity and skills, so they capture more of the value they create.

This is a great idea, as long as they operate on an actual free market, not a market where the terms are completely controlled by a large corporation so that they're just miscategorized employees of that corporation. I would be happy to see taxi drivers empowered to start their own taxi companies, for example, on a free market, not one where they have to pay rent to Uber or Lyft. But I get the feeling that's not what you're actually proposing.

If what you're actually proposing is a gig economy on platforms controlled by central companies, then any value you think is going to go into the pockets of workers, is just going to go into the pockets of the rent-seeking platforms. The only empowerment workers get is the power to pay for their own health insurance.

[1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/04/07/yes-we-have-noticed-th...

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

#114

Post by andrey_utkin » Tue, May 12, 2020, 5:43 PM UTC

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…

> 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.

This complicates the landscape, but this is a problem which should be addressed separately. If the system of taxing and enforcement effectively incentivises evading them and disincentivises law obedience, then taxing and enforcement system is messed up.

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

#115

Post by rkeene2 » Tue, May 12, 2020, 5:45 PM UTC

djsumdog wrote: post #100

nradov wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Did Snowden work fully remote as an NSA contractor with classified data?

No. If he did work at home (which is what I'm assuming you mean by "fully remote") on classified material it was not part of his job, and thus if he billed the US Government for that time it would be timecard fraud. If you have knowledge of this, you should report it to DCAA ( https://www.dcaa.mil/ ).

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

#116

Post by ashtonkem » Tue, May 12, 2020, 5:49 PM UTC

kerkeslager wrote: post #87

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.

There are two ways you can close the gap between low-income, in-person work, and high-income, remote work: 1. The straw man you're suggesting: get rid of remote work. This is obviously not universally possible. 2. Pay in-person workers more. Because you know, if someone is essential enough to die for their work, maybe they are also essential enough to be included in the American dream of owning their own home and car…

I never suggested the straw man you mentioned in 1. You made that up on my behalf to argue against, which is weird.

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

#117

Post by kerkeslager » Tue, May 12, 2020, 5:51 PM UTC

GordonS wrote: post #98

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…

> This is a pretty awful, irrelevant post. Remote work is bad for low income earners, because it's not available for most low income earners. Some people are doing better while others are being impacted. I don't understand your agreement. How exactly is remote work bad because it's not available to those working physical jobs? I also don't understand what you mean about being "impacted" - how does people working remo…

I edited my post out from under you, but my intent was just to clarify what I was saying, not to make your post look bad. Does this change your response?

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

#118

Post by [deleted] » Tue, May 12, 2020, 5:51 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

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

#119

Post by jakelazaroff » Tue, May 12, 2020, 5:52 PM UTC

GordonS wrote: post #98

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…

> This is a pretty awful, irrelevant post. Remote work is bad for low income earners, because it's not available for most low income earners. Some people are doing better while others are being impacted. I don't understand your agreement. How exactly is remote work bad because it's not available to those working physical jobs? I also don't understand what you mean about being "impacted" - how does people working remo…

> I also don't understand what you mean about being "impacted" - how does people working remotely negatively affect those that don't? If remote working was to really gain traction, I can only see potential positives - I'd expect house price inflation to reduce in cities, and I'd expect overcrowded public transport in those cities to become much more comfortable.

As high earners leave, you can expect investment in public services and infrastructure to go down as well. See for example how white flight to the suburbs in the mid–20th century US affected cities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight#United_States

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

#120

Post by kerkeslager » Tue, May 12, 2020, 5:55 PM UTC

ashtonkem wrote: post #116

kerkeslager wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two ways you can close the gap between low-income, in-person work, and high-income, remote work: 1. The straw man you're suggesting: get rid of remote work. This is obviously not universally possible. 2. Pay in-person workers more. Because you know, if someone is essential enough to die for their work, maybe they are also essential enough to be included in the American dream of owning their own home and car…

I never suggested the straw man you mentioned in 1. You made that up on my behalf to argue against, which is weird.

You said:

> 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.

If you don't think anyone disagrees with this, then why did you say it?

And if you do think people disagree with this, then you're making the straw man argument I said you were.