Scheduling Technology Leaves Low-Income Parents With Hours of Chaos • Hacker News Board

Re: Scheduling Technology Leaves Low-Income Parents With Hours of Chaos

#71

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Aug 14, 2014, 4:17 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #40

kevinh wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Children aren't always intentional, and birth control isn't cheap, especially for someone who works near-minimum wage jobs. Add to that the general lessening of availability of birth control due to conservative influences in the United States, and you get an environment in which birth control is hard to effectively use—especially if you're on an erratic schedule, which this woman is.

Not to mention the US, Japan, and most if Europe is already below the replacement rate. Without immigration we are a dying society suggesting we need even fewer kids is a great way to end up extinct. Reolistically, in the long term we need to support young parents with policies that promote having more kids or accept that 'the American way of life' is a dead end doomed to failure.

[deleted]

Re: Scheduling Technology Leaves Low-Income Parents With Hours of Chaos

#72

Post by mannkind » Thu, Aug 14, 2014, 4:17 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #40

kevinh wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Children aren't always intentional, and birth control isn't cheap, especially for someone who works near-minimum wage jobs. Add to that the general lessening of availability of birth control due to conservative influences in the United States, and you get an environment in which birth control is hard to effectively use—especially if you're on an erratic schedule, which this woman is.

Not to mention the US, Japan, and most if Europe is already below the replacement rate. Without immigration we are a dying society suggesting we need even fewer kids is a great way to end up extinct. Reolistically, in the long term we need to support young parents with policies that promote having more kids or accept that 'the American way of life' is a dead end doomed to failure.

You state that as fact, but it seems highly unlikely. Please cite your source.

Re: Scheduling Technology Leaves Low-Income Parents With Hours of Chaos

#73

Post by nhaehnle » Thu, Aug 14, 2014, 4:19 PM UTC

AdamFernandez wrote: post #58

I was thinking it would be interesting to create a 'low-income life simulator' where people could be presented with all the problems of an American with low income. With limited resources, and branching scenarios, you would attempt to 'solve' your way out of it. It would be interesting to see the reaction of people who blame low-income people for their own troubles, when actually playing this game.

Papers Please! has some elements of that, but of course it's set in a fictional country.

Re: Scheduling Technology Leaves Low-Income Parents With Hours of Chaos

#74

Post by vinceguidry » Thu, Aug 14, 2014, 4:21 PM UTC

anon1385 wrote: post #56

Kenji wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Ah but degrees don't guarantee you stable employment." If the degree benefits your employment chance, you should have done it before you have kids. If the degree does not benefit your employment chance, then why do it at all? Either way, finish it before. Look, what I don't understand is people having kids, knowing fine well that they don't have the time and/or money to support them and then whine for public funding…

What makes you think a degree that is good for your employment chances today will still be relevant in 15-20 years time?

What degrees offered 15 years ago are irrelevant today? Honest question here, as someone who dropped out of college 10 years ago, I've no idea of how academia works in that direction.

Re: Scheduling Technology Leaves Low-Income Parents With Hours of Chaos

#75

Post by gojomo » Thu, Aug 14, 2014, 4:21 PM UTC

pyre wrote: post #41

gojomo wrote: post #16

Minimum wages also contribute to this: when you remove flexibility from one parameter of a gigantic system in dynamic tension, it can be partially clawed back elsewhere. So if the mix "lower wages but consistent (and often overstaffed) schedules" is prohibited by the wage law, you may instead get the mix "slightly higher wages but hours aggressively trimmed and rearranged".

Even people making minimum wage struggle to make ends meet. Do you propose that this will significantly change if we remove minimum wage? I understand the "prices will fall" mantra, but cost of living goes up with inflation. One would think that there would be no need for a minimum wage because as cost of living goes up, no one would be paying the 'bare minimum' anymore. The problem is that this is not what we see in…

Did I mention prices at all? (You've slipped into some other scripted debate, with fuzzy political euphemisms like "making ends meet", which is only tangentially related to the point I'm making about the topic of this article.)

The point above is that the system has many, many parameters in constant dynamic adjustment. Setting a minimum on one that's easy-to-observe (hourly wages) in law doesn't just cause that one value to change.

The adjustments happen all over. Marginal workers aren't hired or kept-on-staff. Hours of operation are trimmed. Outfits run on slimmer crews. It's harder to find someone to ask a question. Lines for check-out get longer. Facilities go a little longer between restocking/cleaning. (Minimum wages mean grosser store bathrooms.) Unregulated, harder-to measure benefits get trimmed. The topic of this article, schedule predictability or flexibility, is just such a benefit.

And it doesn't require conscious tit-for-tat book-balancing action by employers for these trade-offs to happen. As they notice they're making less, adjustments happen. (Or, smaller businesses that are slow to adjust simply become uneconomical and leave the market: minimum wages benefit Wal-Marts & McDonalds, with their expert formula operations, over intuitive "Mom-and-Pops".) Over time, since more people are now eager for extra hours at the legally-mandated higher salary, it's easier to place more informal demands on those people, like "you better take every shift when offered, or it won't be offered again".

There are likely some good workers who'd prefer steadier work, in predicable shifts, at a lower wage. That agreement is made illegal by minimum wage laws, and they are forced to compete with a larger group of people looking to scoop up shorter, more random, higher-paying shifts.

Re: Scheduling Technology Leaves Low-Income Parents With Hours of Chaos

#76

Post by aianus » Thu, Aug 14, 2014, 4:21 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #65

datasmash wrote: post #46

The macro trend of more and more companies shifting jobs from full time to part time is disconcerting. Working one of these service jobs where you're slave to your hours like this is hell. The "Share Economy" (Uber, TaskRabbit, etc.) has the potential to make this both better and worse. At least if you're an independent uber driver, you can choose when you're going to be available and pick up jobs when it makes sense…

> The "Share Economy" (Uber, TaskRabbit, etc.) has the potential to make this both better and worse. Incidentally, while its a pleasant (for the industry) propaganda/marketing label, these things have nothing to do with sharing. They are routine sales-through-an-agent, and are no more about "sharing" than selling a house through a real estate agent is.

They're different from their traditional competitors in that they increase the utilization of one's pre-owned assets. I can use the same car for commuting as I do for moonlighting as an UberX driver, for example. That's pretty innovative, whether people like to admit it or not.

Re: Scheduling Technology Leaves Low-Income Parents With Hours of Chaos

#77

Post by Symmetry » Thu, Aug 14, 2014, 4:25 PM UTC

zo1 wrote: post #61

swalsh wrote: post #15

If there is a higher demand for workers during certain hours, shouldn't the workers be paid higher for those hours? Seems like a fair trade off? If you want ala carte hours, you should pay ala carte prices. Only way I can think to do it though is by regulating time software... something like "if you use flexible hours, you must comply to these regulations" where in they specify custom pricing.

" Seems like a fair trade off? If you want ala carte hours, you should pay ala carte prices. " That only works if the supply of workers is limited. And in this case, the low-wage bracket, it isn't. It's absolutely flooded with people, so you can't expect the workers to command any such bargaining power. It's simply supply and demand, and there simply isn't enough demand to satisfy the huge supply of low-wage workers.…

If workers really didn't have any bargaining power then they'd all be paid minimum wage, whereas in reality just 5% do. Workers are not fungible, people don't start being productive until they learn the ropes and some people are better or worse at their job even after training.

Re: Scheduling Technology Leaves Low-Income Parents With Hours of Chaos

#78

Post by ovulator » Thu, Aug 14, 2014, 4:27 PM UTC

AdamFernandez wrote: post #58

I was thinking it would be interesting to create a 'low-income life simulator' where people could be presented with all the problems of an American with low income. With limited resources, and branching scenarios, you would attempt to 'solve' your way out of it. It would be interesting to see the reaction of people who blame low-income people for their own troubles, when actually playing this game.

I’ve seen something like this before (I forget where or its name), the idea is sound, but it added alot of sensationalist stuff as well, which would allow someone to dismiss it at as a whole.

It also threw in some points where the “character” made a bad decision, which led to really dire consequences. Someone could easily conclude “they are poor because they made bad decisions” but it doesn’t highlight how if you have the money bad decisions don’t compound the way they do when you don’t.

Re: Scheduling Technology Leaves Low-Income Parents With Hours of Chaos

#79

Post by koblas » Thu, Aug 14, 2014, 4:29 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #43

swalsh wrote: post #15

If there is a higher demand for workers during certain hours, shouldn't the workers be paid higher for those hours? Seems like a fair trade off? If you want ala carte hours, you should pay ala carte prices. Only way I can think to do it though is by regulating time software... something like "if you use flexible hours, you must comply to these regulations" where in they specify custom pricing.

Looking from the other side of it: if the supply of workers is such that you can get enough for your high-demand hours without paying more, why should workers be paid more? I realize that the real world adds a lot of complications, but in theory, supply and demand should just work itself out here. "In theory" isn't always useful by itself, but the remedy depends greatly on why the theory is breaking down.

It could be viewed as a tragedy of the commons economic issue. Where a small pool of workers who have some self-interest driven needs (e.g I need money) in place drive a market to a condition that is no longer functional (e.g. nobody can make a living wage).

Re: Scheduling Technology Leaves Low-Income Parents With Hours of Chaos

#80

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Aug 14, 2014, 4:29 PM UTC

aianus wrote: post #76

dragonwriter wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The "Share Economy" (Uber, TaskRabbit, etc.) has the potential to make this both better and worse. Incidentally, while its a pleasant (for the industry) propaganda/marketing label, these things have nothing to do with sharing. They are routine sales-through-an-agent, and are no more about "sharing" than selling a house through a real estate agent is.

They're different from their traditional competitors in that they increase the utilization of one's pre-owned assets. I can use the same car for commuting as I do for moonlighting as an UberX driver, for example. That's pretty innovative, whether people like to admit it or not.

> They're different from their traditional competitors in that they increase the utilization of one's pre-owned assets.

That's actually not a difference from their traditional competitors, in that (to the extent that the uses weren't actually illegal at the time) agent-intermediated rentals for already-owned assets weren't new things when these apps started doing it, and also because these apps aren't specific to "pre-owned" assets, and in fact drive asset purchases dedicated to rental through the apps. (And, in any case, rental-through-an-agent doesn't become "sharing" just because you owned the property you chose to rent out before you decided to rent it out.)