Live data from Hacker News

Scheduling Technology Leaves Low-Income Parents With Hours of Chaos

nytimes.com

51–60 of 152 posts

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

#51
post #39

I've written simple scheduling software. The only consideration taken by this scheduling software were worker preferences: management doesn't care who covers the shifts, just that they're covered. So it took into account "fairness", day of week preferences, scheduled holidays, et cetera. By those measures, the software does a lot better than humans. However, there's something to be said about the predictability of th…

What really helps is if the employees can 1) go online and see their "proposed" schedule months out, ideally with decent export options 2) can trade shifts, ideally online in some app (and have contact info for their colleagues) 3) have a schedule printer in the office 4) can report in ill on the app 5) and of course, manager needs to be hands-off from the schedule (you can of course, build this into the software by…

Yes, my scheduling software has those, or equivalents. iCalendar export, a way to email everybody if you get sick, et cetera. It works on the honour system: anybody with a login can schedule anybody else for a particular shift. The presumption is that the other party has agreed to the change, and that assumption hasn't been violated for the 5 years they've used the software. If that presumption ever gets violated I suppose I may be asked to put in more verification, but I suspect that the response likely would be to remove the offender from the group.

In retrospect, that's perhaps all I should have built. But the schedule optimization part was the "fun" part. The rest is pretty standard CRUD + email webapp.

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

#52
post #35

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:…

"Ah but degrees don't guarantee you stable employment." If the degree benefits your employment chance, you should have done it before you have kids. If the degree does not benefit your employment chance, then why do it at all? Either way, finish it before. Look, what I don't understand is people having kids, knowing fine well that they don't have the time and/or money to support them and then whine for public funding…

Can I guess that you grew up in an environment where you were taught, either by family or schools about birth control? That you had healthy role models about what a stable family looks like? That it was odd where you grew up for people to have children in high school? Or that you were taught how to calculate how much time/money it takes to support a child?

If so, you grew up with enormous privilege. Lots of people are born into situations where none of that is true. Some truly exceptional folks are born without any of that privilege, make what we consider to be mistakes in family planning, before learning any of that, and still strive to make their lives better. I for one would like there to be resources available to help them escape that brutal cycle.

Saying that it is self-inflicted shows a gross myopia about how much of the world lives and implying that the most vulnerable and weakest amongst us can coerce us into doing anything is laughable.

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

#53
post #33

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.

It's a good thing for you (and all of us) that most people think you're nuts. If the threshold for having a kid was $1MM in the bank, our population would crash and our economy would be doomed.

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

#54
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorting it out requires predicting ~20 years of social and technology changes, which is a pretty high bar. A stable job today might not be stable in 5 years, if employment conditions change (as they seem to be changing in the case discussed here). I suspect in the medium-term future there will be very few stable jobs at all.

"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.

No, it isn't common sense. It's a wise decision to make under a certain set of socio-economic conditions, which may not apply uniformly to everyone that you encounter.

Your statement takes a lot of very complex issues and oversimplifies them. You don't need to walk a mile in another man's shoes to empathize with this story. Sometimes you just have to walk a mile in your own shoes, from the wrong bus stop, while you are already late for your job.

This woman's life sucks because a lot of different people made a lot of independent decisions to make her very slightly worse off so they could make their own situations slightly better. Someone decided to prevent the school nurse from distributing condoms at school to win a few votes. Someone decided to raise tuition again, and then hire more adjuncts and fewer associates. Someone decided to bribe dealers to destroy old cars instead of refurbishing and reselling them, to prop up the market for new cars. Someone decided that child care services would only be provided from 8 to 6 on weekdays, to people with a confirmed home address, because otherwise the revenues wouldn't cover the worker expenses. Someone decided to schedule a required course during peak busy hours at local restaurants.

Individually, those are minor inconveniences. All together, it looks like the whole world is conspiring to make your life a living hell, a nickel or dime at a time. Having all the common sense in the world cannot protect you from it. The scramble and the hustle of scraping together enough money to survive the next week exposes you to all kinds of petty hassles. And most of it happens just because people have no idea how their decisions of convenience can become inconvenient to other people. Other times, they know and don't care.

So it does actually require a lot of change. Much of it will be in predicting and recognizing the previously hidden effects of your own choices. When you purposefully understaff the checkout lanes at all of your retail outlets, and someone is sent home because they arrived to work with full-blown influenza because they have no sick leave, and the manager has to ask another worker to fill in, that person has to rearrange their life in order to make it to work, because they need the money just as much as the person who showed up half dead. Maybe as a society, we don't actually want to screw up thousands of other people's lives to save 2% on laundry detergent, but that's what we're doing now, and changing that is not quick or easy.

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

#55
post #33

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.

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 another 30-40 years, which will require a younger generation to provide the goods and services we will need to stay alive.

This point seems to be missed by a lot of libertarians (who are frequently childless single young men) in their anger about parents getting support from the government.

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

#56
post #35

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:…

"Ah but degrees don't guarantee you stable employment." If the degree benefits your employment chance, you should have done it before you have kids. If the degree does not benefit your employment chance, then why do it at all? Either way, finish it before. Look, what I don't understand is people having kids, knowing fine well that they don't have the time and/or money to support them and then whine for public funding…

What makes you think a degree that is good for your employment chances today will still be relevant in 15-20 years time?

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

#57
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Ah but degrees don't guarantee you stable employment." If the degree benefits your employment chance, you should have done it before you have kids. If the degree does not benefit your employment chance, then why do it at all? Either way, finish it before. Look, what I don't understand is people having kids, knowing fine well that they don't have the time and/or money to support them and then whine for public funding…

> The whole thing is completely self-inflicted. No, it's inflicted by a broken society. In a working society, at least a working first-world society, everyone has at least a basic standard of living. This allows both a flexible economic system (entrepreneurship, job-changing, etc.) and family life to coexist: your company going bankrupt does not mean your kid can't attend school or eat. The American solution seems to…

"No, it's inflicted by a broken society."

No, it's not. The broken society didn't make the woman pregnant and give birth. Also, 'broken' sounds really melodramatic.

"In a working society, at least a working first-world society, everyone has at least a basic standard of living."

Is having and maintaining a Ferrari a basic standard of living? No? Well, that's how expensive kids are, no, they're even more expensive. That is a very ambitious basic standard you're setting here. Obviously, this is going to cost uninvolved people heaps of money just because everyone thinks they are entitled to make as many children as they want regardless of their ability to support them. It's a huge burden on everyone else's back. The pinnacle of selfishness.

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

#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.

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

#59
post #37
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…

Any society that does not structure itself such that each adult can be biological parent to at least two children without significant penalty to their own quality of life is not going to be stable in the long term. That's not even a full replacement rate.

I can see a case for "People without f(N) money shouldn't be allowed to have an Nth child, for N>2." It would be quite the intrusion on liberty, but I understand how people who act as K-strategists wouldn't want their offspring to be overwhelmed by r-strategists.

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

#60

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.

An interesting idea although you run the risk of making 'low-income life' seem like an interesting puzzle and one that once-solved is pretty easy actually.

Your idea reminded me of a project someone built several years ago to give western audiences a taste of life in darfur...

http://www.darfurisdying.com/

Post reply on HN