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

191–200 of 368 posts

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

#191

Post by papaver-somnamb »

Alright, narrower spreads in economic inequality appears to connote greater overall happiness in the measured society. Perhaps attributable to the averaging and not representative of the outliers, or demonstrable of modality, but that might be a separate argument. Northern European countries are famed for ranking near the top. The degree to which a society is advanced can be measured in part by how it treats its most disadvantaged members. And in the long run, we help ourselves by helping each other.

But (playing the devil's advocate here) I'm interested in equalizing opportunity, not in equal outcome and artificial fairness.

If this notion is ridiculous, would somebody care to enlighten / disillusion?

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

#192

Post by xkapastel »

devcpp wrote: post #166
oneiftwo wrote: post #157

Not all work is equally valuable. Not all work is equally doable. Some work requires decades patience and sacrifice before one is competent enough to perform it. Some work is physically or cognitively beyond the vast majority of the population. It doesn't make sense to expect all jobs to have all the same benefits and privelegdes. Even if we pretend that all humans are fundamentally equal in ability, inequality will…

To add to this, forget qualifications and experience. If a job pays well, that in itself is undeniable proof that it has greater value, no justification needed. Capitalism works not because it rewards on someone's definition of merit, but because it rewards doing what people want.

I think the coronavirus has proven this to be false. Many of the so called "essential jobs" are low paid, but the "essential" label is an acknowledgement of their high value to society.

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

#193

Post by spideymans »

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?

That’s not the implication of the title, that’s merely how you’ve decided to interpret it. We can recognize an idea is good while also recognizing that it has faults.

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

#194

Post by bsder »

intopieces wrote: post #179

It seems from the comments that a lot of the readers here equate "let's look at socioeconomic inequality" with "let's make sure everyone has the same socioeconomic outcome by bringing down the people who earn more." This is... a leap not found in this article. The idea is to make sure that we realize the knock-on effects of changes in the workforce / society and take measures to make sure people who have the ability…

> -Giving people computers

> -Making sure people have access to broadband

There should be a Rural Broadbandification Project set into motion so everybody gets fiber. This also has the advantage that it requires lots of labor like digging ditches.

It also has the advantage that it would allow some of these high earners to move from turbo-high cost of living areas to much lower ones.

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

#195

Post by rmrfstar »

This is more evidence that the market clearing price for labor is irrational and inefficient.

Most workers are not compensated for (a) the surplus value they generate, or (b) the risk they bear in work activities.

This article goes to point (b). Point (a) is evident in [1], and is far more problematic as it leads to consolidated control over resources (physical and the ability to direct the daily activities of others).

[1] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jofi.12909

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

#196

Post by bsder »

nradov wrote: post #56
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.

Not at all true. However, your department will have to install things like properly certified safes into your house. This may mean bolting things into your concrete basement, etc.

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

#198

Post by commandlinefan »

war1025 wrote: post #62
yters wrote: post #46

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 know that I want remote workers stocking my shelves, driving my buses, and building things in my factories... 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.

You're being sarcastic, but humans controlling robots from a distance has actually been tried before, and was promisingly successful: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/11/26/national/cafe-o....

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

#199

Post by madamelic »

xattt wrote: post #37
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.

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

Even ignoring the WFH bit, a remotely-controlled 'nursebot' could be the best case. Not only would it prevent communicating disease, but it would reduce stress on nurse's bodies, more precise medication administration (by reducing error + augmenting knowledge).

Although, isn't human contact considered an important part of recovery?

I guess the nursebots would be better in some cases than others.

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

#200

Post by rmrfstar »

Avicebron wrote: post #175
oneiftwo wrote: post #157

Not all work is equally valuable. Not all work is equally doable. Some work requires decades patience and sacrifice before one is competent enough to perform it. Some work is physically or cognitively beyond the vast majority of the population. It doesn't make sense to expect all jobs to have all the same benefits and privelegdes. Even if we pretend that all humans are fundamentally equal in ability, inequality will…

I really can't understand this mindset, it views the system that we have as fundamentally meritocratic and that only hard work matters. This is demonstrably false with a cursory review of how our (the US) education system, economy, and geographic distributions reward and punish people.

> it views the system that we have as fundamentally meritocratic

Agreed. There is another dimension to it as well. Labor pricing is set by "replacement cost."

In a country where workers have been made precarious intentionally [1], replacement cost will be much lower than (a) the surplus value created by the worker, (b) the risk a worker bares in work activities.

There is empirical evidence that this is taking place on a grand scale. [2]

[1] https://chomsky.info/20120508/

[2] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jofi.12909

Post reply on HN