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

201–210 of 368 posts

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

#201

Post by dzhiurgis »

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…

If a whole plant/shop is ram by robots then you wouldn’t need a fan first place!

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

#202

Post by gen220 »

bsder wrote: post #194
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.

I like the idea, as a kind of spiritual successor to the Federal Aid Highway Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aid_Highway_Act_of_195...), but for a different kind of transportation.

I don't know if our congress could ever come together on something like this in 2020, but I'm sure some highly specific implementation could be found that everyone could more or less agree to. Is there any existing project or group campaigning for this idea?

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

#203

Post by ianleeclark »

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…

> 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.

You're right. Designing shirts that work well in both the board room and discoteca is incredibly strenuous work which is why only people who have the correct inter-cranial skull slope (e.g., Wyatt Koch) can do this work.

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

#204

Post by Avicebron »

renewiltord wrote: post #188
Avicebron wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it a false god? "QoL Trending in the right direction" seems to be a very myopic way to view the world. When it's clear concentration of wealth has slowly eroded the dignity of many peoples lives, encouraging them to work longer and longer hours in jobs with less benefits "gigs/contracts" while being jerked around by increasingly powerful and untouchable classes of people. I've experienced this phenomenon very…

All societies that primarily aimed at equality have harmed their members. All societies that have aimed at top-quartile growth have their bottom-quartile more prosperous than those who've aimed at minimizing Gini. Empirically, it has not led to happy people.

Well doesn't that counteract pleasantness in an absolute sense? I would argue there has never truly been a society aimed at equality on a large scale. I don't consider the implementation of communism to have been truly aimed at equality and certainly didn't end that way.

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

#205

Post by NortySpock »

mrunkel wrote: post #177
sandworm101 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Show me a robot that can FIND a rusty bolt. The act of cleaning, of scrubbing away the dust and dirt from a work area, is beyond AI at the moment. If that rusty bolt has been painted over it might as well not exist.

The robot doesn’t need to see it if it has the plans in it’s head.

Does the planned schematic reflect the reality of the installation?

Does the wiring diagram show how the cable bends under its own tension?

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

#207

Post by rmrfstar »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #187
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…

Income inequality is not intrinsically bad, but we have too much of it in the US. Let's get the ratio of income between the top decile and bottom decile somewhere below 10:1.

At a certain point the ratio is so high that it cannot be explained by differing abilities, and can only be explained by the structure of the market.

Let's say a brain surgeon makes $2m/year. That makes sense, they are uncommonly talented.

Does it make sense that someone can amass as wealth 50,000 years of brain surgeon economic output ($100bn)? If the distribution of human endowments is Gaussian, as it likely is, this level of wealth accumulation cannot be explained by superior productivity alone.

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

#208

Post by ativzzz »

rmrfstar wrote: post #195

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…

I would argue that market rationality and efficiency described in economics textbooks does not exist, nor has ever existed.

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

#209

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN