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

271–280 of 368 posts

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

#271

Post by alexashka »

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…

It is not the role of government to encourage working from home. It is also not the role of government to wipe your butt or provide you with toilet paper.

What are these individuals who are 'traditionally left out' exactly? You mean people with idiot parents or no parents?

We can easily fix that, but that'd involve oops, actually facing reality and wanting to solve problems instead of engaging in cries for re-distribution of resources someone else has created.

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

#272

Post by renewiltord »

Avicebron wrote: post #261
renewiltord wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Citation?

Probably not going to look for one, sorry. You may prefix "From what I can see" wherever necessary should you wish to soften the claims.

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

#273

Post by csense »

xapata wrote: post #212
gen220 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That sounds like yet another wealth transfer from metro areas to rural areas. I understand that the US government is structured that way, by the creation of the Senate, but as a city-dweller, I'm not a fan. I'd rather pay for people to move, perhaps subsidizing housing where other services have competition and jobs are plentiful.

> wealth transfer from metro areas to rural areas

I live in the Rust Belt, and when I visited San Francisco, it was like visiting a different planet.

I find it hard to believe that wealth transfer from metro to rural is larger than wealth transfer in the opposite direction.

Why does $HOT_TECHBRO_STARTUP invariably choose to locate its offices in the ultra-tight real estate and labor markets of SF, NYC or Austin when there are plenty of small cities who desperately need an employer like them, since they're full of factory ruins, empty storefronts, hordes of unemployed workers, and all the most promising young people leave as soon as they finish high school or college?

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

#274

Post by oneiftwo »

ianleeclark wrote: post #230
tathougies wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Have you ever actually had to hire someone to do something nontrivial?

Statistically speaking, hiring good help is difficult. Hiring good help repeatedly is a skill. Building an entire business in an unfamiliar domain is certainly easier with inherited money, but still requires rare talent. Which is why as another poster pointed out, the 1% has a 50% generational turnover.

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

#275

Post by juped »

The most interesting part (to me) is not touched on in the article - if expensive jobs can be done remotely from Gary, Indiana, they're not going to go to Gary natives who are currently underemployed, but to the same small crowd of well-off people who are just going to move to Gary, driving prices there up. I think this is the inequality that is interesting and matters.

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

#276

Post by macinjosh »

downerending wrote: post #236

Looking at it just now, this appears to be the money quote: Given its potential benefits, telecommuting is an attractive option to many. Studies have shown a substantial number of workers would even agree to a lower salary for a job that would allow them to work from home. The appeal of remote work can be especially strong during times of crisis, but also exists under more normal circumstances. The ongoing crisis the…

These sort of people see every trade-off or compromise a person might make in life as systemic oppression. If someone decides they don’t mind earning less if they get to work from home that’s their decision! No one is making them do this.

No one goes to the car dealership expecting the premium trim for the standard trim price. This is no different. Like it or not we sell our time, attention, and effort in exchange for money. Different types and manner of work are worth different amounts.

Our culture (sans pandemic) has begun to place more value on their life than their work so they make choices like this. It is a good thing to let me people do what works best for them.

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

#277

Post by cameronbrown »

tathougies wrote: post #222
xkapastel wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why is this controversial? It's the truth, however unfair it seems.

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

#278

Post by oneiftwo »

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.

This is similar to the price of water. Yes water is essential but it is readily available and so the price is low. Same for many essential jobs. Turns out a lot of the work necessary to keep civilization ticking is menial and requires no specialization. This is not a statement of the value of the workers (though indirectly it unfortunately often is), only the work they they provide.

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

#279

Post by cameronbrown »

commandlinefan wrote: post #198
war1025 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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... .

Try deploying this at scale in a supermarket or warehouse...

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

#280

Post by steveklabnik »

csense wrote: post #273
xapata wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like yet another wealth transfer from metro areas to rural areas. I understand that the US government is structured that way, by the creation of the Senate, but as a city-dweller, I'm not a fan. I'd rather pay for people to move, perhaps subsidizing housing where other services have competition and jobs are plentiful.

> wealth transfer from metro areas to rural areas I live in the Rust Belt, and when I visited San Francisco, it was like visiting a different planet. I find it hard to believe that wealth transfer from metro to rural is larger than wealth transfer in the opposite direction. Why does $HOT_TECHBRO_STARTUP invariably choose to locate its offices in the ultra-tight real estate and labor markets of SF, NYC or Austin when…

As someone who originally is from the Rust Belt (Pittsburgh), ended up moving to LA, then SF, then NYC, then Austin: one reason is that VCs congregate in the valley and need to make board meetings. I did a startup in Pittsburgh (though it’s been 11 years...) and you just don’t get the same opportunity to raise.

Another is that folks jump between companies often, and don’t want to move to do it. If you want to attract talent from a FAANG, the people who work there are probably already in these areas and won’t want to move.

I love my hometown dearly but I spent most of my life there. I’d rather be elsewhere.

Post reply on HN