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

The growing inequality of who gets to work from home

hbr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 209 posts

Re: The growing inequality of who gets to work from home

#31

Post by Duanemclemore »

locallost wrote: post #26
Duanemclemore wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have had personal conversations with people who went through involved security clearance processes in the 70's, 80's, 90's, and 00's. Between those times I can tell you that everyone but the FBI got more lax about pot (but not cocaine) and homosexuality (even the FBI didn't care about that by the mid 2000's) but not more lax about gambling - even in states where it was already legal. They aren't on the lookout for…

Sounds like a circular argument. The FBI fires gay people, so they had to fire them to prevent them from leaking information because of possible blackmail. But once they stopped firing them for homosexuality there was no need to fire them because of fear they might be blackmailed because of the possibility to fire them. It's probably true for gambling, but the rest sounds like whitewashing. They fired gay people beca…

Yes, it was a completely circular argument. I am 100% not defending it. But you're completely correct that all they had to do to keep someone from being blackmailed because otherwise they'd be fired was... to not fire them.

I'm sure there's a lot of moral-highgrounding about everyone outside the group being untrustworthy, and looking for confirmation of this in the most paranoid ways.

Re: The growing inequality of who gets to work from home

#32

Post by BossingAround »

locallost wrote: post #26
Duanemclemore wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have had personal conversations with people who went through involved security clearance processes in the 70's, 80's, 90's, and 00's. Between those times I can tell you that everyone but the FBI got more lax about pot (but not cocaine) and homosexuality (even the FBI didn't care about that by the mid 2000's) but not more lax about gambling - even in states where it was already legal. They aren't on the lookout for…

Sounds like a circular argument. The FBI fires gay people, so they had to fire them to prevent them from leaking information because of possible blackmail. But once they stopped firing them for homosexuality there was no need to fire them because of fear they might be blackmailed because of the possibility to fire them. It's probably true for gambling, but the rest sounds like whitewashing. They fired gay people beca…

I think the assumption you're missing in the circular argument is that gay people could be blackmailed against other entities than the FBI. For example, "give us this FBI file or else we'll release a scandalous photo of you and this gentleman to your wife" kind of a thing.

Of course, as being gay becomes more normalized and less of a secret, FBI wouldn't need to take it into consideration.

How true or not that thinking is, I have no way of assessing, but it does make sense if you consider the premise of blackmail to 3rd parties true. The same could be probably considered for gambling (e.g. "we'll tell your local church group how much you gambled away in your drunken stupor on this weekend").

Re: The growing inequality of who gets to work from home

#33

Post by goodpoint »

sshine wrote: post #25
madsbuch wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this comment represent a weird sentiment: if you drugt test in one field, you should equally drug test I all fields. How many airplanes crashed due to The pilot being on drugs? it seems like introducing a whole machinery to just have the same resting is an industrial scale waste of resources. However, people regularly die because of drunk and tired drivers.

There is some implicit assumption that drug testing is a safety measure. I am quite convinced it is a productivity measure.

It's neither.

Re: The growing inequality of who gets to work from home

#34

Post by Duanemclemore »

BossingAround wrote: post #32
locallost wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a circular argument. The FBI fires gay people, so they had to fire them to prevent them from leaking information because of possible blackmail. But once they stopped firing them for homosexuality there was no need to fire them because of fear they might be blackmailed because of the possibility to fire them. It's probably true for gambling, but the rest sounds like whitewashing. They fired gay people beca…

I think the assumption you're missing in the circular argument is that gay people could be blackmailed against other entities than the FBI. For example, "give us this FBI file or else we'll release a scandalous photo of you and this gentleman to your wife" kind of a thing. Of course, as being gay becomes more normalized and less of a secret, FBI wouldn't need to take it into consideration. How true or not that thinki…

Gambling was verboten because of the presence of organized crime in the industry even where it was legalized.

Re: The growing inequality of who gets to work from home

#35

Post by virtue3 »

madsbuch wrote: post #24
throwup238 wrote: post #2

The same inequality exists with drug testing too. A lot of low wage roles get drug tested on a regular basis while higher paying careers don’t. Outside the military, pilots rarely get tested despite the fact they’re responsible for many more lives than fork lift operators or truck drivers (who often do get tested). Doctors pretty much only get tested if they botch a surgery or someone reports them. Lawyers? Wallstree…

this comment represent a weird sentiment: if you drugt test in one field, you should equally drug test I all fields. How many airplanes crashed due to The pilot being on drugs? it seems like introducing a whole machinery to just have the same resting is an industrial scale waste of resources. However, people regularly die because of drunk and tired drivers.

How many bad economic decisions were based on cocaine usage back in the day? I think the point is that with higher paying and salaried jobs you are practically exempt from having repercussions due to drug usage while a lowerpaid wage worker is constantly in fear of getting fired over it.

Re: The growing inequality of who gets to work from home

#36

Post by throwaway3563 »

locallost wrote: post #26
Duanemclemore wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have had personal conversations with people who went through involved security clearance processes in the 70's, 80's, 90's, and 00's. Between those times I can tell you that everyone but the FBI got more lax about pot (but not cocaine) and homosexuality (even the FBI didn't care about that by the mid 2000's) but not more lax about gambling - even in states where it was already legal. They aren't on the lookout for…

Sounds like a circular argument. The FBI fires gay people, so they had to fire them to prevent them from leaking information because of possible blackmail. But once they stopped firing them for homosexuality there was no need to fire them because of fear they might be blackmailed because of the possibility to fire them. It's probably true for gambling, but the rest sounds like whitewashing. They fired gay people beca…

This isn’t code executing in a computer. It is about prevailing societal attitudes (which are themselves self-referential and self-reinforcing) so it is necessarily kind of imprecise and circular.

Re: The growing inequality of who gets to work from home

#37

Post by Aeolun »

What nonsense. The divide is not in highly paid vs low paid jobs. It’s between jobs that can be done from home (which happen to be highly paid) and jobs which need specialized equiment/location (which do not).

If I were working a highly paid job where I had to manage a server farm I’d also need to be on location simply due to the requirement of constant physical access.

Re: The growing inequality of who gets to work from home

#38

Post by jojobas »

throwup238 wrote: post #2

The same inequality exists with drug testing too. A lot of low wage roles get drug tested on a regular basis while higher paying careers don’t. Outside the military, pilots rarely get tested despite the fact they’re responsible for many more lives than fork lift operators or truck drivers (who often do get tested). Doctors pretty much only get tested if they botch a surgery or someone reports them. Lawyers? Wallstree…

I would hazard a guess that low-skilled workers are much more likely to come to work cooked than someone like pilots who have a lot on the line.

Re: The growing inequality of who gets to work from home

#39

Post by Jochim »

rapidaneurism wrote: post #30
bitschubser_ wrote: post #11

The same inequality between c level and frontline workers exists on so many levels with other perks is it possible that the c level just don’t want to lose its privileges? In Europe as a manager you get subsidized cars where the company pays for gas, private corner offices, equity or special bonus programs not always are benefits packages available for frontline workers… and now they talk about inequality if more sta…

I think that this is partly because in Europe taxation is progressive and it quickly becomes quite high. (In the UK £100k-£120k is effectively taxed at 60%+ more if you have young kids) So there is a point where giving someone 10k take home pay rise costs the business much more than giving a frontline worker a 10k take home pay rise. But an EV car in the UK is taxed 98% less than the same amount in cash. Rest zones,…

Weren't there changes in the last few years that mean benefits in kind are now treated as taxable income?

I know I recently began paying tax on employer provided health insurance for example.

Re: The growing inequality of who gets to work from home

#40

Post by Aeolun »

unsupp0rted wrote: post #23

The other day I phoned a service provider and the lady’s kid was babbling in the background and a children’s show was playing throughout the call. I couldn’t get off the phone fast enough. Either invest in voice isolation or don’t work from home. Functionally this lady brought her kid to my home office and blasted a cartoon during our meeting. Is this harsh of me and an unpopular opinion? Yes. I agree that Human bein…

Huh, I have the opposite reaction. Whenever I’m on a work call and my colleagues apologize for their children shouting in the background I’m mostly fine with it.

If anything it makes them seem more human when they’re otherwise just some disembodied voices.

Post reply on HN