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

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

#251

Post by eanzenberg » Tue, May 12, 2020, 11:41 PM UTC

eanzenberg wrote: post #238

Avicebron wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This idea is false. Intra-generational mobility in the US is quite strong. Half of people in the 1% are not in the 1% a decade later. About 50% of people move up 1 quintile from their starting quintile of income. I don’t have stats on how this compares to EU or other countries, but this shows a majority American people can move between income quantiles in their lifetime. [1] https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/in…

Hacker news has become tumblr. Thank you for opening my eyes recently. Keep the downvotes coming. Bye!

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

#252

Post by ghaff » Tue, May 12, 2020, 11:52 PM UTC

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.

Everyone probably doesn’t need fiber to their homes. Good 5G access without onerous caps is probably a reasonable alternative.

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

#253

Post by renewiltord » Tue, May 12, 2020, 11:52 PM UTC

Avicebron wrote: post #248

renewiltord wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ma…

Wouldn't it be Gini 0?

No, that's the point. Everyone claiming to minimize Gini gets Gini 1, so in a POSIWID sense, the system that claims to minimize Gini is aiming at maximizing Gini.

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

#254

Post by throwlaplace » Tue, May 12, 2020, 11:53 PM UTC

smabie wrote: post #235

throwlaplace wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time there's an article on hn highlighting how a vulnerable/at risk/marginalized group of people is being put further at risk the typical response is exactly yours: selfish instead of charitable. They're not miserable people simply because you don't get to have another luxury. They're circumspect and compassionate for not simply being complacent and instead exploring all of the effects. You do realize the autho…

> Guess what: if the world is going to improve for poor people then we rich people are going to have to forgo some luxuries; reagonomics/"rising tide raises all ships" doesn't work (how well are the poor people in SF doing?). How does rich people forgoing luxuries help poor people? Moreover, the poor people in SF are doing a hell of a lot better than many parts of the world. I lived in Africa for two years and a mini…

>How does rich people forgoing luxuries help poor people?

easy: take all of the money you would spend on luxuries and donate it to a charity. was it really that hard to come up with that yourself?

>I lived in Africa for two years and a minimum wage worker in the US would be considered almost unimaginably wealthy

great so did i (i can prove it if you think i'm lying just to contradict you). the poor people in africa lived with their families and worked the fields and were able to eat and shelter with those families. would you like compare health care? like the kind that poor people don't have access to either?

>Poor is relative

what does this mean? poor people in america have shorter life spans than rich people, fewer teeth, are incarcerated more often etc etc. who are we relativizing their experiences to?

> You guessed it, the government

the government? you mean the same institution that in other countries is able to succor the poorly and sickly but somehow in this country can't manage to get out from under the thumb of lobbyists?

> medicare/medicaid

you're clueless. is single payer cheaper or more expensive? who is preventing single payer? is it "the government" or interest groups?

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

#255

Post by mesozoic » Tue, May 12, 2020, 11:54 PM UTC

Seems like it'd do the opposite.

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

#256

Post by throwlaplace » Tue, May 12, 2020, 11:54 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #90

throwlaplace wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but now the poor people have to commute to the suburbs completely negating the environmental benefits lol

If they're unable to move, that's 100% right. If they're able to move, even if it's just closer , it could still be a win.

so now we're down to "devs move to suburbs and poor people move a little closer" in order to improve the world? and you still don't think that this disproportionately hurts poor people? do i really have to do more work to show you how this is galaxy brain thinking?

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

#257

Post by vinniejames » Tue, May 12, 2020, 11:57 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #160

vinniejames wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Pilots cannot pilot from home" ... Google 'drones' "Surgeons can't cut" ... oh but they can, https://www.therobotreport.com/remote-surgery-via-robots-adv... Builders can't build... but they can click "Print" https://www.businessinsider.com/3d-homes-that-take-24-hours-...

> "Pilots cannot pilot from home" ... Google 'drones' Most of pilot training consists of dealing with emergencies. Pilots tend to be highly motivated to be safe because they hit the ground first. There's a saying among pilots that saving themselves saves the passengers. I wouldn't get on an airplane with a remote pilot. BTW, in WW2, bringing the chief of maintenance along for the check ride after an overhaul ensured…

Would you buy a package shipped on a plane with a remote pilot? Not all flights carry passengers

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

#258

Post by BobbyJo » Wed, May 13, 2020, 12:01 AM UTC

OldFatCactus wrote: post #170

BobbyJo wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough, but I think we could both agree that the revolution was only beneficial because it changed the old system into something more malleable and predictable. The throne is an unstable thing, as is the man in it, and only subject to change on unpredictable whims. If you already exist in a system that is pliable, like a democracy, revolution really wouldn't bring you any of the benefits the French revolution di…

I don't follow what you mean about context, you brought up a bad example and you're moving goal-posts. There have been numerous revolutions with positive benefits to the world at large as well as to the society/culture in which they took place. I would chance to say that the majority were net-positive. If you find yourself scared of revolution, you should maybe take an introspective moment and ponder why the poor and…

I'm pointing out that the long-term gain from a revolution is not a by product of the revolution itself, but from the pre and post conditions. The revolution was necessary to effect those changes, but it was the difference in condition that lead to the benefit.

Unless you are planning to massively alter the political (IE not have a democracy anymore) or economic system (IE not have capitalism anymore), a revolution does more harm than good, because you are only getting the short-term byproducts which are predominately bad. If the political and economic system remains largely the same, then a revolution is just a period of time where people are committing violence or protesting instead of making things.

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

#259

Post by icebraining » Wed, May 13, 2020, 12:02 AM UTC

ghaff wrote: post #252

bsder wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> -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.

Everyone probably doesn’t need fiber to their homes. Good 5G access without onerous caps is probably a reasonable alternative.

As far as I understand it, 5G doesn't have a wide reach, so it doesn't save that much when compared to aerial fiber.

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

#260

Post by 0x8BADF00D » Wed, May 13, 2020, 12:03 AM UTC

> The possibility of working remotely isn’t available to everyone, with one Canadian study estimating that only 44 per cent of jobs are compatible with telecommuting. Remote work is particularly common among university graduates, managers and professionals, but its practice also depends on the sector and the nature of the job. Finance, for example, compared to manufacturing, is more suitable to remote work. Consequently, many workers are deprived of an alternative that allows them to continue working during crises like the COVID-19 pandemic.

This is due to a couple of different things. Our system for organizing production is outdated. The joint stock corporation is an outdated system. We need something more akin to DAOs. Then employees will be as equally empowered.

Additionally, the fiat monetary system encourages parasitism and inefficiency. With sound money, everyone can benefit. Unlike the current monetary system we have in place.

Cryptocurrency is a poor store of value, but I think is valuable in denoting ownership of something. If you’re given tokens in a DAO, it should be a token or coin that denotes ownership rather than a store of value. This way those who take on the lion’s share of risk, whether they are early investors or employees, will be rewarded the most. It also flattens the management structure substantially. Not much room in a DAO for parasites. Because you need to put your money where your mouth is, so to speak.

In summary, this inequality stems from outdated systems that need to be replaced. As I’ve stated in many previous comments, capitalism is the purest filter with which to perceive reality. There is no bullshit allowed. DAOs > corporations, crypto > stock ownership agreement.