Live data from Hacker News

Remote work can also be a source of socioeconomic inequality

theconversation.com

301–310 of 368 posts

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

#301
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... .

I am not being sarcastic! The threshold for human controlled robots is much lower than fully autonomous robots.

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

#302
post #298
post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Employers should provide computers to employees who are WFH. It's the cost of doing business. Schools need to provide students with computers or computer access, as well; the coronavirus has certainly thrown a wrench into traditional distribution methods. Competitive internet in the US is almost an oxymoron. I have two choices here, and they magically always set the same price, which is no cheaper now than ten years…

What does it mean to suffer from a shortage of labor? As an economist, it's hard to understand that phrase. I usually take it to mean that an employer doesn't want to pay the prevailing wage, or dislikes the trend of wage increases. Given that understanding, there most intense "shortage" is where labor is most expensive. That means in the city, and for highly skilled workers. As for your teeth, I suggest an early mor…

Not enough people to do they available work.

If the youth leave and don’t come back, rural areas slowly die.

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

#303
It seems that for the most part these jobs require: low technical skill, physical presence, and low amounts of flexibility. These also seem like the types of jobs where a longer work week leads to more productivity, in that more "widgets" are produced (length of the work week is another hot topic here on HN). But these also seem like the jobs that are more vulnerable to automation.

I'll give some examples. I'm seeing entire movie theaters remove the box office and use touch screens. This can reduce the number of needed staff by 20%. We see similar things at grocery stores (a single person can man 6+ registers, just needing to check an ID, which this can probably be automated soon). Clothing sales are moving online to places like Amazon. Etc.

So how do we create a more fair economy? One where everyone has the opportunity to rise into jobs that they want? Get the education they need for that job? Do we let X% of the population just not be productive but still get a basic income? What's that do for mental health? Do we create meaningless jobs that are just jobs for the sake of a job? What's that do for mental health? How do we provide equal opportunities (not equal outcomes) for everyone? More importantly, how do we develop that kind of culture?

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

#304

It seems that for the most part these jobs require: low technical skill, physical presence, and low amounts of flexibility. These also seem like the types of jobs where a longer work week leads to more productivity, in that more "widgets" are produced (length of the work week is another hot topic here on HN). But these also seem like the jobs that are more vulnerable to automation. I'll give some examples. I'm seeing…

> So how do we create a more fair economy?

Well the easiest way would be to forbid private capital.

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

#305
post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having at least some distributed population is a national asset in the event of conflict. Not to mention some people need to live in rural areas due to the nature of their work. Also, what’s it worth to you to enable rural America to have a similar enough lifestyle to you that you’re both more likely to consider yourselves the same sort of Americans? National cohesion is worth something.

I think there are enough decently-sized metropolitan areas that we'd be distributed well enough. > National cohesion is worth something There's been this bizarre fairytale of the noble yeoman running through American history, as if that were the true national identity. It's never been less true than today. I think a healthy unemployment benefit and permissive neighborhood zoning policies are sufficient to help them t…

What in particular do you disagree with about the idea of the noble yeoman?

I'm not saying I think every rural person fits this image, but there's some percent that do, at least as I think about it.

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

#306

It seems that for the most part these jobs require: low technical skill, physical presence, and low amounts of flexibility. These also seem like the types of jobs where a longer work week leads to more productivity, in that more "widgets" are produced (length of the work week is another hot topic here on HN). But these also seem like the jobs that are more vulnerable to automation. I'll give some examples. I'm seeing…

> So how do we create a more fair economy? Well the easiest way would be to forbid private capital.

That's an easy way to create a different kind of unfair economy, but not a way (by itself) to create a fair one. If there is no private capital there is no private ownership. If there is no private ownership then you're back in _The Republic_ ignoring the fact that Aristotle already pointed out the crucial flaw in that desire - people care more for what is their own than for what is held in common

> For that which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it. Every one thinks chiefly of his own, hardly at all of the common interest; and only when he is himself concerned as an individual. For besides other considerations, everybody is more inclined to neglect the duty which he expects another to fulfill; as in families many attendants are often less useful than a few. Each citizen will have a thousand sons who will not be his sons individually but anybody will be equally the son of anybody, and will therefore be neglected by all alike.

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.2.two.html

Or perhaps you're looking for the angels that Madison writes about in Federalist #51 to distribute all capital fairly without assigning ownership of any of it to those to whom it is distributed?

> It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed51.asp

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

#307

It seems that for the most part these jobs require: low technical skill, physical presence, and low amounts of flexibility. These also seem like the types of jobs where a longer work week leads to more productivity, in that more "widgets" are produced (length of the work week is another hot topic here on HN). But these also seem like the jobs that are more vulnerable to automation. I'll give some examples. I'm seeing…

> So how do we create a more fair economy? Well the easiest way would be to forbid private capital.

I'm sorry, you're going to have to expand on this. Dang even made a sticky noting specifically this. We can discuss it, but it isn't obvious to me or others, albeit it might be obvious to you.

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

#308

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.

The top decile and bottom already are below that ratio. ~90k gets you to the top 10%. 10k puts you at the bottom 10% (not a full time worker). The problem is really the wealth of the top 10%. See the top households: Net Worth of the 10%, 1%, and .1% Households Percentile Threshold 10% 2% 1% 0.10% Net Worth $1,182,390.36 $5,816,220.17 $10,374,030.10 $43,090,281.00 The top 1% owns 35% of the wealth in this country. the…

Sorry, I phrased that wrong, I'm not talking about the numbers exactly at 10% and 90%. I mean the total of 0-10 and the total of 90-100. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...

It's not the people at 90% that are getting way too much money. It's the people above them.

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

#309
post #275

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.

But Gary, Indiana has a lot more room. In addition, the new well-off people will need coffee, and cars, and groceries, and be able to pay for them. This will rejuvenate other jobs. With more people with money who can now afford tickets and buy merchandise, maybe more bands will start playing in Gary, Indiana, improving the music scene. With more people with more disposable income, maybe some of them will be intereste…

How is it different than trickle down economics? Won’t those coffee shops just be starbucks and grocery stores be Whole Foods and all the profit from them returned to shareholders?

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

#310
post #275

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.

I think the jobs would go to the most capable and there are capable people everywhere, but not all are willing to relocate to such places ad California or New York. You do see a lot more smart people in these areas because this is where they were all attracted to like magnets by high paying jobs. If a bit less high paying jobs become available no matter where one lives how many people would be willing to relocate? I…

I think a lot of smart or upper middle class people would still want to live near other smart or upper middle class people even if jobs were remote.

Humans are social animals and I think it's common for people in privileged positions to want to associate with others like themselves.

Post reply on HN