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

121–130 of 368 posts

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

#121

Post by y-c-o-m-b »

This is a dangerous title and I hate it because the implication is remote work = bad. These stupid titles are what people (e.g. Marissa Mayer) refer to as evidence when trying to enforce non-telecommute cultures.

The article itself is good and raises some serious questions worth discussing and even encourages finding ways to allow remote work for lower-income jobs, so I would have preferred "Remote work and solving inequality" or even "Remote work and inequality" as a title.

I really wish "journalists" would stop writing opinionated and click-bait titles like this because it's really damaging to those of us that have livelihoods built around these things. If you're trying to bring attention to inequality so we can better the lives of more people then that's great, but don't do it at the expense of destroying other lives. I'm seeing more and more articles attacking remote work like this and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little anxious.

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

#122

Post by GordonS »

kerkeslager wrote: post #117
GordonS wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a pretty awful, irrelevant post. Remote work is bad for low income earners, because it's not available for most low income earners. Some people are doing better while others are being impacted. I don't understand your agreement. How exactly is remote work bad because it's not available to those working physical jobs? I also don't understand what you mean about being "impacted" - how does people working remo…

I edited my post out from under you, but my intent was just to clarify what I was saying, not to make your post look bad. Does this change your response?

It does change my response, to a null one, because you're now not saying any of the things I was reacting to.

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

#123

Post by ashtonkem »

kerkeslager wrote: post #120
ashtonkem wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never suggested the straw man you mentioned in 1. You made that up on my behalf to argue against, which is weird.

You said: > A large percentage of low income work is service work that requires physical presence. You can’t make the typical burger joint remote friendly without automating all the jobs away. If you don't think anyone disagrees with this, then why did you say it? And if you do think people disagree with this, then you're making the straw man argument I said you were.

I said it because the article was suggesting that government should fix the WFH gap, and I assert that you can’t for the reasons I stated. That’s. It.

I find it extremely weird and not a tiny bit annoying that you’re continuing to assert what you think I’m saying even as I correct you.

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

#124

Post by kerkeslager »

GordonS wrote: post #122
kerkeslager wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I edited my post out from under you, but my intent was just to clarify what I was saying, not to make your post look bad. Does this change your response?

It does change my response, to a null one, because you're now not saying any of the things I was reacting to.

Cool, sorry for editing my post out from under you.

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

#125

Post by GordonS »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #119
GordonS wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a pretty awful, irrelevant post. Remote work is bad for low income earners, because it's not available for most low income earners. Some people are doing better while others are being impacted. I don't understand your agreement. How exactly is remote work bad because it's not available to those working physical jobs? I also don't understand what you mean about being "impacted" - how does people working remo…

> I also don't understand what you mean about being "impacted" - how does people working remotely negatively affect those that don't? If remote working was to really gain traction, I can only see potential positives - I'd expect house price inflation to reduce in cities, and I'd expect overcrowded public transport in those cities to become much more comfortable. As high earners leave, you can expect investment in pub…

I don't think there would be a mass exodus of remote workers - living in a city still brings significant benefits that appeal to a large segment of the population.

I say all this from a British/European perspective though - I understand that politics, human rights, labour laws and discrimination in the US are very different than they are here, and it's true that my comment didn't take any of that into consideration.

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

#126

Post by aabeshou »

jlbnjmn wrote: post #81
aabeshou wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

To make matters far worse, the government subsidizes low-wage employers with the income based social programs in place, and tampers with supply to keep wages in check. We have nothing close to a free market for labor. Unfortunately, it's called a free market, and so people think the market is ineffective. Construction was a high paying job until unrestricted labor drove down wages. (Unenforced labor laws meant contra…

I sort of agree with this on the condition that "tampering with supply to keep wages in check" includes union-busting. If unions and other forms of labor power were not suppressed by a government owned by Capital, then we would have a chance to see the "free market" potentially arrive at some of the same outcomes that socialists seek, such as worker co-ownership of firms and fair profit distribution. However, it's a bit paradoxical because one of the mechanisms by which these changes would occur is by labor power overturning a lot of the rules of capitalism. A system which did not allow this to happen would still be unjust, supporting the status quo through its so-called laissez-faire neutrality.

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

#127

Post by GordonS »

kerkeslager wrote: post #124
GordonS wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does change my response, to a null one, because you're now not saying any of the things I was reacting to.

Cool, sorry for editing my post out from under you.

Thanks for saying so, or I would have thought I'd responded to the wrong post :)

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

#128

Post by kerkeslager »

ashtonkem wrote: post #123
kerkeslager wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said: > A large percentage of low income work is service work that requires physical presence. You can’t make the typical burger joint remote friendly without automating all the jobs away. If you don't think anyone disagrees with this, then why did you say it? And if you do think people disagree with this, then you're making the straw man argument I said you were.

I said it because the article was suggesting that government should fix the WFH gap, and I assert that you can’t for the reasons I stated. That’s. It. I find it extremely weird and not a tiny bit annoying that you’re continuing to assert what you think I’m saying even as I correct you.

> I said it because the article was suggesting that government should fix the WFH gap, and I assert that you can’t for the reasons I stated. That’s. It.

But government can fix the WFH gap, because letting everyone work from home is not the solution anyone was proposing, since everyone knows that isn't possible.

The WFH gap isn't that some people get to work from home and other people don't. If you're saying that's the problem, you're making a straw man argument.

The WFH gap is that the people who can't work from home, aren't getting compensated for risking their lives and aren't getting compensated for how essential they apparently are.

> I find it extremely weird and not a tiny bit annoying that you’re continuing to assert what you think I’m saying even as I correct you.

Okay, if you really intended to say that not everyone can work from home: sure. That's completely obvious, did not need to be said, and is irrelevant.

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

#129

Post by yters »

war1025 wrote: post #62
yters wrote: post #46

Laptops and smart phones are everywhere these days, regardless of income level, so accessing remote work is not a problem. I think the only reason remote work might hurt low income people is due to lack of business owners taking advantage of available remote workers.

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.

robots with humans in the loop!

most robots are quite capable, but the AI isn't there

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

#130

Post by aabeshou »

spugody wrote: post #71
aabeshou wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I don't think that is an ideological aim of capitalism. It is just an emergent behaviour. In any case, it is a genuine question from someone living in a decent welfare state and happy to continue to do so. I don't really care to engage in debates of who has the moral high ground, just the practical question, if you have an answer.

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 impossible to live on in many areas.

Post reply on HN