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

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

#351

Post by aianus » Wed, May 13, 2020, 11:40 PM UTC

jahaja wrote: post #249

aianus wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In my country, Sweden, we have a very generous child welfare and parental leave. I have no children though. By your logic I should be envious and bitter? But I'm proud. It's called solidarity and having a healthy society benefits a childless me as well. It's not tricky, and has been going on for the last fifty years or so just fine.

That's not the same as a minimum wage that is high enough for people to raise three children.

We were talking about wages, not state benefits.

State benefits are a much better way to address income inequality or poverty than minimum wages are.

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

#352

Post by BurningFrog » Thu, May 14, 2020, 12:26 AM UTC

mnm1 wrote: post #337

BurningFrog wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a decent counterexample. Though maybe people didn't revolt before, since ultimately the Soviets would roll in the tanks if they ever toppled Ceaușescu.

Yeah, hard to say. The USSR was still alive for two more years but probably too busy by the end of '89 to care much about such foreign affairs as it was likely crumbling from the inside. But it's hard to know. I think what's more likely is that Ceaușescu would have kept going long after Soviet collapse if he hadn't been killed, probably into a multi generational cult of personality dictatorial communist state. Basica…

Yeah, I'm somewhat familiar with the utter madness and evil of that regime...

Thanks for making me a little less sure of my universal revolution theory :)

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

#353

Post by xapata » Thu, May 14, 2020, 2:36 AM UTC

newsclues wrote: post #331

xapata wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the cause is the other way around. The villages disappear because there's no work to do, not that there's no people to do work. Modern agriculture, mining, and manufacturing don't employ many people. We already subsidize farmers to not grow so much that they flood the market. It's reasonable that production capacity should shrink and prices rise. Some prices are currently propped up by regulation.

The economics of subsidies are one thing but... I grew up in a rural area with family farms. The farms are viable businesses that feed people. Farmers kids go away to school and few of them return to be farmers, and it’s hard to bring in workers (commute times, lack of housing) so despite there being work, people leave. Technology and automation have played a role but there is more work than people

> more work than people

That's true for all industries with increasing wages. Pay more. Charge more.

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

#354

Post by rwmurrayVT » Thu, May 14, 2020, 11:39 AM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #340

rwmurrayVT wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never once been able to leave my salaried job without reaching 40 hours while still receiving the same pay.

Conversely, I’ve never once had to punch a time clock at any of my salaried positions. None of my employers would ever be able to tell the difference between 38, 39, 40, or 41 hours in any given week (nor has any given any indication they'd care even if I told them the difference).

I have worked primarily for the prime contractor on Department of Navy work. Either at a prime ship repair yard or an AIT. They take time cards very seriously. I'd suspect you might get some wiggle room in the public realm/software, but as someone mentioned below I'd prefer my time/money trade to be explicitly laid out.

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

#355

Post by jahaja » Thu, May 14, 2020, 1:19 PM UTC

aianus wrote: post #351

jahaja wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my country, Sweden, we have a very generous child welfare and parental leave. I have no children though. By your logic I should be envious and bitter? But I'm proud. It's called solidarity and having a healthy society benefits a childless me as well. It's not tricky, and has been going on for the last fifty years or so just fine.

That's not the same as a minimum wage that is high enough for people to raise three children. We were talking about wages, not state benefits. State benefits are a much better way to address income inequality or poverty than minimum wages are.

Well, if the businesses and corporations doesn't want to pay the taxes to fund it, they obviously have to fund it instead.

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

#356

Post by ciceryadam » Thu, May 14, 2020, 3:37 PM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #55

TomMarius wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The central point of the Velvet revolution was that it was non violent; also it was not about foreign oppresor primarily, we were oppresing ourselves very well without much help needed.

My impression is that once it was clear the Soviet Union would not rescue the regime, it had lost it's power base, and was doomed.

By the time the Velvet Revolution started, Poland was already after it's semi-free election, Hungary dismantled the heavily protected border with Austria, and the Berlin wall fell. But still, part of the local communist army had a contingency plan, 2 MiG-29 jets going supersonic, as low as they could, above the 300000+ protesters in Letna park. Thank god they didn't go through with it. Sources in Czech: https://www.seznamzpravy.cz/clanek/stacil-by-prelet-stihacky... https://www.parlamentnilisty.cz/zpravy/Havel-vzpominal-Staci...

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

#357

Post by vinniejames » Thu, May 14, 2020, 5:20 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #294

vinniejames wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That would depend on if you're willing to accept the risk of a malicious hacker taking 50+ over. That would be a "nope" from me.

How many times has that happened to military drones? I'd be more worried about an armed stealth jet than a cargo plane full of rubber dog $ out of Hong Kong

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

#358

Post by aabeshou » Thu, May 14, 2020, 7:18 PM UTC

dpoochieni wrote: post #342

aabeshou wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, I misunderstood your tone as challenging, like "who is anyone to say what is fair or not?" technically in the U.S. there is a federal (nation-wide) minimum wage, then there are minimum wages for each state. I am not sure how they are defined, e.g. the federal one is certainly not automatically pegged to inflation. there is a movement to raise the federal minimum wage to $15/hour but even that is hard or im…

The effects of raising minimum wages are twofold: long-term businesses will invest more in automation as it will be more profitable; short-term they might fire one or two people who might make sense at 12 but say now at 15 it does not. Actually think about how it affects different size business, large corporations can easily afford the automation, fire many people as they have many others. A small business having to…

arguably, a business that pays someone less than a living wage doesn't deserve to operate, just as a business that can't exist without using slaves doesn't deserve to operate

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

#359

Post by aabeshou » Thu, May 14, 2020, 7:21 PM UTC

unishark wrote: post #185

aabeshou wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the models of market fairness work perfectly in a world where people could simply choose not to work, and where everyone has the ability to work to qualify for any job. however in the real world people are forced to work by a need to survive, which puts disempowered people in a position to be exploited. and there is unequal access to education, to the leisure time to participate in education, and to the material secu…

I've never heard of "models of market fairness", it sounds silly. I called the extreme where fairness was irrelevant an ideal. I take it you agree with that point. Though I don't see that much of what you are saying is particularly crushing to the ideal. In "the real world" one also doesn't need to switch jobs every day like a day trader changing stocks. I also take it you concede that pursuing fairness leads to redu…

> I also take it you concede that pursuing fairness leads to reduced efficiency?

Efficiency of what? Yes, it reduces the efficiency by which overall wealth is created (whatever that means). And yes, it enhances the effiency by which a society provides for the needs of all.

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

#360

Post by rkeene2 » Fri, May 15, 2020, 1:53 AM UTC

kthxbye123 wrote: post #156

rkeene2 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. If he did work at home (which is what I'm assuming you mean by "fully remote") on classified material it was not part of his job, and thus if he billed the US Government for that time it would be timecard fraud. If you have knowledge of this, you should report it to DCAA ( https://www.dcaa.mil/ ).

This is the most powerful snitch energy I've ever seen.

It was clearly a joke response to a joke question.

Reporting Edward Snowden for timecard fraud, while technically it could be a valid infraction, misses the scope of the crimes he is already known to have committed.

Also, the penalty would be on the company that has the agreement with the US Government and not Edward Snowden himself (which could include being barred with doing business with the US Government for 1 year).