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

41–50 of 152 posts

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

#41

Post by pyre »

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 practice.

Another consideration is that middle-/upper-class wages would (in my opinion) no fall as a result of minimum wage abolition. This does not have an insignificant impact on prices too (just because cost goes down does not necessarily translate into lower prices, maybe just higher profits).

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

#42

Post by dragonwriter »

fixedd wrote: post #9
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…

>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. I haven't been effected by this sort of thing in years, but I've always felt that they should have to pay you for hours they schedule you, whether they use you or not.

> I haven't been effected by this sort of thing in years, but I've always felt that they should have to pay you for hours they schedule you, whether they use you or not.

What I think would make sense in a regime where minimum wage exists, given that people often work multiple jobs and such scheduled-but-canceled-at-the-last-minute hours effectively exclude other work is to include hours scheduled or where the employee is required to be "on call" for work that are not cancelled sufficiently far in advance -- obviously, one needs to decide where to set the bar here -- are counted as hours worked for minimum wage purposes (including for calculation of overtime pay due at minimum wage -- and for hours worked for related purposes like "full time" status as it relates to any benefit mandates, etc.), but not as hours worked at the actual wage for the position, or overtime entitlement based on the actual wage. So, you can't use schedule-and-cancel to drop the pay for the "reserved" time of an employee below minimum wage.

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

#43

Post by mikeash »

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.

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

#44

Post by datasmash »

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.

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

#45

Post by Roboprog »

smtddr wrote: post #37
swalsh wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people will never get the opportunity to have a stable environment... through no fault of their own. Does that mean they should never have the opportunity to be parents?

There are a bunch of people on HN who would say "Yes, people without X amount of money shouldn't be allowed to have children." And I think that's a sad world to be in where income dictates your ability to have kids. I think having kids is a right that one should be able to exercise regardless of income and it is a problem with our society that we cannot support low-income families, not a problem with the low-income p…

Sadly, fertility rates go down, and birth defect rates go up, as we age.

Modern US society expects you to study, work and save until you are 30 to 40 before having kids (internet boy moguls aside).

Soo... Why is autism on the rise?

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

#46

Post by datasmash »

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 for your schedule. There are time periods that are higher/lower demand, but you're wage is reflected in that and its your choice to make.

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

#47

Post by kasey_junk »

aianus wrote: post #33
_delirium wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah but degrees don't guarantee you stable employment. Perhaps child-bearing should be limited to people with at least $100k in the bank to cover emergencies, plus a STEM degree? Maybe a savings account and a STEM degree and N years of experience, to make sure they aren't one of those people with a CS degree who can't code? Alternately, here is a good way of ensuring a minimum level of economic stability for everyone:…

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.

What makes you think $1 million in liquid assets is enough to plan for the next ~100 years?

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

#48

Post by mikeash »

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…

I don't see him proposing that minimum wages should be removed, or that anything will "magically" work out if they are. I merely see him stating that minimum wages contribute to this particular problem, which is true. It does not then follow that minimum wages should be eliminated.

This sort of knee-jerk reaction makes it really hard to discuss any sort of public policy in a rational way. The moment you point out any problem with anything, somebody will come along and "rebut" your statement by pretending that you just stated that everything would be better if you eliminated the thing you're discussing. It's really annoying!

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

#50

Post by mikeash »

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.

So what?

Seriously, what actionable advice for this context are we to take from the statement that "you shouldn't have a child if you haven't yet set up a stable environment for them"?

Lots of people have children right now without a stable environment for them. Unless you have access to a time machine, I don't see anything useful coming from your statement for them.

Lots of people in the future will have children without a stable environment, for a variety of reasons ranging from just really wanting one to birth control failures to sudden disability or job loss. What's your proposal for stopping this? I assume you're aware that just going around saying "you shouldn't do it" doesn't actually stop it.

Post reply on HN