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

Is remote work bad for the economy?

fractional.work

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 363 posts

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#131

Post by danuker »

f6v wrote: post #123
chii wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This obviously is a financial loss for the economy it's not, because the money that was otherwise spent (wasted) can now be deployed else where. Otherwise, why not increase the GDP and economy, by periodically just breaking every window? The replacement is gonna cause huge growth!

> Otherwise, why not increase the GDP and economy, by periodically just breaking every window? Starting wars to fuel arms industry worked just fine so far.

Bonus points if you loot oil or some other resource.

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#132

Post by badpun »

chii wrote: post #89
michaelteter wrote: post #74

This applies everywhere: just because a job or business has existed does not mean it has a right to exist forever. This is not being harsh on people; it's just a reality. The blacksmiths in the horse and buggy days saw demand for their services fall when time and technologies changed. The coal miners began losing their jobs when we realized that coal as fuel was more harmful than it was beneficial. History is full of…

> This obviously is a financial loss for the economy it's not, because the money that was otherwise spent (wasted) can now be deployed else where. Otherwise, why not increase the GDP and economy, by periodically just breaking every window? The replacement is gonna cause huge growth!

> it's not, because the money that was otherwise spent (wasted) can now be deployed else where.

Not neccessarily, people have less costs now, so some people can now just choose to work less - which would shrink the economy.

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#133

Post by landemva »

geysersam wrote: post #117
friendzis wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wellllll.... debatable. This argument of expense rerouting is a bit flawed. Suppose working from home saves one some money that they spend elsewhere. Working from the office they spend that money on fuel, indirectly spend on road maintenance, directly spend on vehicle maintenance where the shop in turn spends on parts and tools and so on. The money one spends circulates in the economy much longer and reaches more act…

The purpose of the economy is to fulfill human desires. The only question we have to ask to understand which situation resulted in higher economic output is: which situation resulted in satisfying more human desires. It's clear that the pointless burning of fossil fuels didn't satisfy any human need. Then the question becomes: is the distribution of currency caused by the buying and burning of the fuels preferable to…

> the pointless burning of fossil fuels didn't satisfy any human need.

That sentence would have a different meaning if the conclusitory (looking for real word here) word "pointless" was not there.

Abundant reliable on-demand energy has enormously improved the human condition. I'm also glad the Dutch no longer dig up peat bogs for dirty fuel.

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#134

Post by HPsquared »

chii wrote: post #89
michaelteter wrote: post #74

This applies everywhere: just because a job or business has existed does not mean it has a right to exist forever. This is not being harsh on people; it's just a reality. The blacksmiths in the horse and buggy days saw demand for their services fall when time and technologies changed. The coal miners began losing their jobs when we realized that coal as fuel was more harmful than it was beneficial. History is full of…

> This obviously is a financial loss for the economy it's not, because the money that was otherwise spent (wasted) can now be deployed else where. Otherwise, why not increase the GDP and economy, by periodically just breaking every window? The replacement is gonna cause huge growth!

It's not really about the money itself but the amount of work done. If people get less work done, that's less value added. Less 'stuff' is produced but the same wage is paid - regardless of what happens with inflation.

Whether that's good or bad is another question, as is the question of whether it even is happening or not.

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#135

Post by randomdata »

nomad225 wrote: post #127
randomdata wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$15 USD for a meal at a business in the business of selling food? Your local cost of living must be insane! I think you'd be hard-pressed to spend much more than $5 USD for a meal at a food business around here. In these parts, I can go to a restaurant in the business of selling an experience, with nice ambiance, a server who will wait on you hand and foot like you are some kind of king, etc. and can have nearly anyt…

Are you referring to fast food when you say that $5 USD is a meal?

Some fast food restaurants are in the experience business, so not strictly so, although I am sure that some food produced in the food business would be considered fast food, so I suppose it doesn't preclude it either. I'm not sure the question really overlaps with the discussion, although perhaps I don't fully understand what you are asking.

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#136

Post by dcow »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #107
satoru42 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is said that in many cities in China the governments actually did something similar. They broke parts of the roads repeatedly so that they could rebuild them later.

That's how local corruption works in Eastern European cities. New mayor gets elected, so good streets get torn up and re-paved, so that his friend who runs a local construction company gets a lucrative government contract above market rates. Rinse and repeat every time we get a new mayor. It's a tried and tested way of legally shoveling public taxpayer money into well connected private pockets. I've seen similar corr…

SF too.

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#137

Post by topspin »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #12

I don't know if it's bad for the economy. It's certainly made my world smaller in a way probably not experienced by my parents for example. On a weekly basis, ranked by frequency I see - my wife, my dog, my mailman, and the attendant at the gas station. Past that I can't quote a regular person I interact with on weekly basis.

"Past that I can't quote a regular person I interact with on weekly basis."

The establishment promulgated term for this is "social distancing."

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#138

Post by theshrike79 »

newswasboring wrote: post #92
raldi wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

School quality is one of the most important criteria people use when deciding where to buy a house.

Maybe within a city, but people are not moving to another town/city to get access to a good school. The primary factor for people moving somewhere is still jobs. If that wasn't the case why will these people move out of the place which made them this capable?

The only reason we DIDN'T move during Covid was because of the school, otherwise we'd be living in the sticks in a huge house that's 50% cheaper and 200% bigger.

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#139

Post by mejutoco »

HPsquared wrote: post #134
chii wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This obviously is a financial loss for the economy it's not, because the money that was otherwise spent (wasted) can now be deployed else where. Otherwise, why not increase the GDP and economy, by periodically just breaking every window? The replacement is gonna cause huge growth!

It's not really about the money itself but the amount of work done. If people get less work done, that's less value added. Less 'stuff' is produced but the same wage is paid - regardless of what happens with inflation. Whether that's good or bad is another question, as is the question of whether it even is happening or not.

It seems false to assume that people work less when working remotely. That is far from obvious. I personally think it is false, and have not seen any justification of it.

I understand arguments about people not eating business lunch near the office. Although it looks like home delivery and extra home office snacks, coffee, etc. would also cause spend, just in different areas as before.

Additionally, in places where the state pays for healthcare, having less stressed workers, having less traffic accidents (I assume, since less commutes) might overall decrease the amount of money spent on health and save some money for the state too.

It is not an easy thing to model IMO.

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#140

Post by SrslyJosh »

HPsquared wrote: post #134
chii wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This obviously is a financial loss for the economy it's not, because the money that was otherwise spent (wasted) can now be deployed else where. Otherwise, why not increase the GDP and economy, by periodically just breaking every window? The replacement is gonna cause huge growth!

It's not really about the money itself but the amount of work done. If people get less work done, that's less value added. Less 'stuff' is produced but the same wage is paid - regardless of what happens with inflation. Whether that's good or bad is another question, as is the question of whether it even is happening or not.

Even if less work gets done (citation needed, I think there are reasons why remote can increase productivity), you also don't have at least one major negative externality: pollution from commuting. There are also likely economic benefits: remote workers can move to areas that would otherwise suffer an economic drain from mass migration to large cities. Imagine how many other cities would benefit if most of us didn't have to live in the same six cities (in America).
Post reply on HN