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

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

#221

Post by aianus » Tue, May 12, 2020, 10:24 PM UTC

jahaja wrote: post #112

spugody wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Does it include children? How many is considered dignified? Some people have to have 3 just to keep the population steady.

If so, is it appropriate for a childless 18-year-old on minimum wage to earn that much (he could probably lease a Ferrari or retire at 38)

Is it appropriate for a company to pay a childless person less than a person with children? Why? What if he’s sterile?

Seems very tricky to me.

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

#222

Post by tathougies » Tue, May 12, 2020, 10:24 PM UTC

xkapastel wrote: post #192

devcpp wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They are low paid because in most times anyone can and would be willing to do them. Now, no one wants to do them, so pay will increase if the lockdowns continue.

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

#223

Post by tathougies » Tue, May 12, 2020, 10:25 PM UTC

callmeal wrote: post #189

devcpp wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The sad part is that most of the jobs that have great value pay so little. Imagine considering sanitation, seasonal farming, teaching, childcare and other jobs as "low value". Says quite a lot about our values as a society doesn't it?

seasonal farming is not poorly paid: https://money.cnn.com/2012/11/27/news/economy/farming/index....

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

#224

Post by nickff » Tue, May 12, 2020, 10:26 PM UTC

rmrfstar wrote: post #207

Dylan16807 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, th…

You're assuming that the returns to talent are linear, when they are not.

Let's say you're hiring a new CEO for Apple; how much is a 0.1% more talented CEO worth? My math says that 0.1% is worth 260 million per year.

Even though the 'best' CEO might only be a tiny bit better than the runner-up, the 'best' runs a much larger company, and makes far more money.

From this, you can see that the returns to the most talented CEOs and executives are more proportional to the scale of the largest enterprises than to the individual's talent.

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

#225

Post by jedberg » Tue, May 12, 2020, 10:30 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #190

One thing that I find curious about the initial chart of data from Canadian workers (percent who worked some hours at home by income group) is that while the trend is clearly more hours worked at home with more income, I'm not so sure that's an unambiguously good thing. "Are you able to work an entire day of your 40-hour workweek from home?" is a very different question from "Are you able to work your 45th through 60…

> Sometimes, I think it would be refreshing to do something like airline pilot where I'd probably enjoy the job overall but that it was pretty clear there's no expectation that I'd fly an airliner in my non-work time.

Yeah, I've only had jobs that can be done anywhere, which is both good and bad. It gives me flexibility but also expectations.

Sometimes I envy my dentist friends. They make great money, but when they leave at 5:30pm, they are done for the day. Even their continuing education is scheduled into their in-office work day, as one of their benefits. On the flip side, they have to be in that office every day from 8:30 to 5:30. There is very little flexibility.

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

#226

Post by jkingsbery » Tue, May 12, 2020, 10:31 PM UTC

jupiter-nave wrote: post #182

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…

While I agree with your point, in a spirit of fairness, I think a lot of people are tired of being bludgeoned with "implication" rhetoric. "Socioeconomic inequality" is a pretty loaded term and some people use it to make others feel guilty or attempt a sweeping indictment of the society we live in. Many economists and sociologists use it more in the sense of this article, but it's not surprising that such an overload…

I agree. A less antagonistic title would be "How to Expand the Benefits of Remote Work To All." While it is literally true that socioeconomic inequality is increasing, it is increasing because one side is better off in a way that takes nothing away from the other side.

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

#227

Post by renewiltord » Tue, May 12, 2020, 10:34 PM UTC

Avicebron wrote: post #204

renewiltord wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In a POSIWID sense, systems that claim to be equality systems are actually aiming at Gini 1. Therefore, my priors on the outcomes likely if I am to go along with an equality-optimizer are high that I will end up a serf and near zero that I will end up equal participant in the commune.

My priors on the outcomes likely if I am to go along with a top-line optimizer are high that he will make out like a bandit, I will make out like a bandit's brother's mechanic, and low that he will eat me.

Merely empirically, optimizing for happiness of the bottom quartile, I should never choose the guy who claims to be an equality-optimizer. America is prosperous and peaceful and a veritable font of innovation. Her poorest are wealthy. Her hungriest are satiated. It's working. I'm going to double down. And double down again. It's going to keep working.

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

#228

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o » Tue, May 12, 2020, 10:34 PM UTC

Can someone help me understand this? The thesis is that remote work is making inequality worse, but all they show is an association between working remote and income. Where's the thesis coming from? Even if it was a causal association, with more remote work causing higher incomes, that seems like a good thing.

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

#229

Post by smabie » Tue, May 12, 2020, 10:34 PM UTC

ativzzz wrote: post #208

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.

Then it should be pretty easy to make a ton of money in the market, no? What's great about finance is that if you believe there are persistent inefficiencies in the market, you can put your money where you mouth is and exploit them. As market participants might tell you though, the market is much more efficient than you might expect.

But let's talk more about the efficient market hypothesis (EMH). Many have the misunderstanding that EMH is some sort of axiom that people actually believe. No one actually believes it to be literally true, but without EMH as a guiding principle, modern finance could not exist. The actions of many market participants creates the mostly/sometimes efficient market we have today.

Put another way, in order for a market to be efficient, it needs participants who are arbitraging away the inefficiency. But because they are profiting off the (temporary) inefficiency, clearly the market isn't efficient!

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

#230

Post by ianleeclark » Tue, May 12, 2020, 10:36 PM UTC

tathougies wrote: post #218

ianleeclark wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 s…

I mean... it kinda is. Not only is textile design difficult in and of itself (my mom is a very very good hobbyist seamstress, and it takes a lot of work to make even simple garments that work well and feel good), but getting the supply chain running is very difficult and beyond both the skill and patience of most people. You have to be comfortable with not only sewing, but also factory machinery. My mother wanted to…

Alternatively he could just use a bunch of money inherited from his family and, by merit of having investment capital and a box of crayons, be able to profit off the people he hires.