Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Scheduling Technology Leaves Low-Income Parents With Hours of Chaos

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 152 posts

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

#91

Post by dragonwriter »

aianus wrote: post #88
dragonwriter wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 "pr…

Normal people didn't rent out their bedrooms overnight before AirBnB came around and now they do. Normal people also didn't drive strangers around for money in their own cars before Lyft and UberX came along and now they do. You can't say there's nothing new there.

> Normal people didn't rent out their bedrooms overnight before AirBnB came around and now they do. Normal people also didn't drive strangers around for money in their own cars before Lyft and UberX came along and now they do.

People clearly did. I'm not sure what definition of "normal" you are trying to use here, but it seems likely circular...

> You can't say there's nothing new there.

Nor did I say that there's nothing new there. What I did say is that it has nothing to do with "sharing", each is just a new convenient web/mobile app for fairly normal agent-intermediated rentals (often with little attention to the legalities of the specific industry -- which in several cases of so-called 'sharing economy' companies is the main innovation offered over existing online agent-intermediated rental systems in otherwise similar markets.)

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

#92

Post by PeterisP »

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.

Cart Life does exactly that.

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

#93

Post by PeterisP »

willismichael wrote: post #27
Kenji wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Sorting it out requires predicting ~20 years of social and technology changes, which is a pretty high bar." No. Finishing your degree before you have a child is not a high bar. It's common sense.

"Finishing your degree" in no way guarantees employment.

Nothing guarantees employment, but some factors almost guarantee a low income.

You can't be sure if you'll be okay, but if you already know that you definitely won't be okay - well, then you probably can't afford to have kids.

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

#94

Post by PeterisP »

datasmash wrote: post #44
Kenji wrote: post #12

Am I the only one who thinks you shouldn't have a child if you haven't yet set up a stable environment for them? That includes sorting out your education and jobs.

It's obviously as not as simple as that if you didn't choose to have your child.

Having a child definitely is a choice.

You "don't choose to have your child" only if the three main things (conceiving, birth and rising up) are forced on against your will; i.e., in cases of rape in a society that doesn't allows neither abortion nor adoption; or in cases of persons that are mentally incapable to decide for themselves (they do sometimes have kids and the ethics of those events are often unpleasant, involving their abuse).

In USA, I'd like to believe that pretty much all parents are raising their children are results of choice - perhaps a reckless choice made long ago by a different version of themselves; perhaps a difficult choice with lots of complications; perhaps an unsure choice with emotional pressure from family&friends - but in the end, still based on their own choice and own responsibility.

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

#95

Post by tomjen3 »

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.

There was an attempt at this game on HN a year or so ago. It was insanely hard, but also super flawed - just one example you may get a scenario about half way in where you find out you have a dog, which you suddenly have to pay vet bills for.

Found it: http://playspent.org/

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

#96

Post by streptomycin »

anon1385 wrote: post #55
aianus wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth I wouldn't have a kid without $1 million in liquid assets set aside for him. It seems evil to me to have a kid without enough money to feel confident he'll never have to work for money. But then most people think I'm nuts.

If everybody did that it would cause a demographic crisis. Who exactly do you expect to be looking after you when you are retired (growing your food, manufacturing your medication, diagnosing your ailments etc etc) and only 0.01% of the population have had children in the last 50 years. Other people having children is actually a vital service to the rest of society. Or at least those of us hoping to live for at least…

How do you expect endless increases in population to affect the climate?

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

#97

Post by oh_sigh »

oneweirdtrick wrote: post #8

>Maria Trisler is often dismissed early from her shifts at a McDonald’s in Peoria, Ill., when the computers say sales are slow. The same sometimes happens to Ms. Navarro at Starbucks. Reminds me of the beginning of Marshall Brain's novella 'Manna': >Manna was connected to the cash registers, so it knew how many people were flowing through the restaurant. The software could therefore predict with uncanny accuracy when…

That seems like a miss. I don't understand why, if they have such good technology, they wouldn't just have sensors on the trashcans or toilets that inform them when they need emptying/cleaning.

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

#98

Post by hatandsocks »

oneweirdtrick wrote: post #8

>Maria Trisler is often dismissed early from her shifts at a McDonald’s in Peoria, Ill., when the computers say sales are slow. The same sometimes happens to Ms. Navarro at Starbucks. Reminds me of the beginning of Marshall Brain's novella 'Manna': >Manna was connected to the cash registers, so it knew how many people were flowing through the restaurant. The software could therefore predict with uncanny accuracy when…

> >Manna was connected to the cash registers, so it knew how many people were flowing through the restaurant. The software could therefore predict with uncanny accuracy when the trash cans would fill up, the toilets would get dirty and the tables needed wiping down.

> http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

The first two chapters are really good, but it goes downhill very quickly. Fiction requires suspension of disbelief, and I nearly burst out laughing at the dialog in the fifth chapter. It also fails to explore some of the more interesting aspects of robots-as-blind-managers.

For example, the robot asks workers in a store to report the shelf stock and asks a second to verify. What happens when typically-mischievous teenage workers lie to the computer (either individually or as a conspiracy)? Do they convince the computer that duct tape is a highly-shoplifted item? Is the software smart enough to correlate the misreporting with specific workers or groups of workers (and does it ever misidentify the perpetrator)? Do engineers spend untold hours figuring out why "Manna" keeps overstocking (or understocking) duct tape?

The computer manager in Manna is shown as a all-knowing with human intelligence and common sense. We all know that real software isn't like that.

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

#99

Post by GHFigs »

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.…

Give the workers daycare, food, accommodation, training/education and pay them peanuts...

In practice, many low-wage workers already get these resources, but via the government (i.e. your taxes) rather than the company.

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

#100

Post by hatandsocks »

oh_sigh wrote: post #97
oneweirdtrick wrote: post #8

>Maria Trisler is often dismissed early from her shifts at a McDonald’s in Peoria, Ill., when the computers say sales are slow. The same sometimes happens to Ms. Navarro at Starbucks. Reminds me of the beginning of Marshall Brain's novella 'Manna': >Manna was connected to the cash registers, so it knew how many people were flowing through the restaurant. The software could therefore predict with uncanny accuracy when…

That seems like a miss. I don't understand why, if they have such good technology, they wouldn't just have sensors on the trashcans or toilets that inform them when they need emptying/cleaning.

If you were building a system like this for real, you'd probably put sensors on toilets and trash cans in addition to the cash register connection. Real sensors fail, and, in a system where workers are explicitly discouraged from using common sense, that leads to overflowing trash cans.
Post reply on HN