Remote work can also be a source of socioeconomic inequality • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by jlbnjmn » Tue, May 12, 2020, 5:07 PM UTC

aabeshou wrote: post #58

spugody wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who defines what a fair wage is?

[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 contractors hiring illegal workers could undercut bids. No payroll taxes, no workman's comp insurance, no chance of legal companies competing.)

Fair wages depend on fair markets, and the labor market at the lower income end of the spectrum is anything but fair.

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

#82

Post by pmiller2 » Tue, May 12, 2020, 5:08 PM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #27

ericwood wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure where you're getting the increased wages bit from; a significant number of companies have been forced to cut wages or furlough their employees. Maybe some people are getting raises, but that is very very far from the norm.

Grocery and supermarket chains all seem to be giving significant hazard pay. Furloughs and pay cuts are AFAIK heavily concentrated in the jobs that pay more than entry-level retail.

Name 3 other examples of industries that are routinely paying hazard pay or have otherwise increased wages.

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

#83

Post by bradlys » Tue, May 12, 2020, 5:09 PM UTC

realbarack wrote: post #54

bradlys wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s purely a regulation issue. We could easily have more affordable housing by increasing supply. If you move people from one area to another without changing supply, you’re just gonna cause issues in the next area.

But if the "one area" is one of ~10 expensive cities and the "another" is 100s of smaller cities, suburbs and large towns, it's much easier to build to meet the change.

Theoretically but that’s just a burueacratic hurdle. Struggling towns would likely build if they knew people would come in but could get stonewalled by local people too. (Don’t let in them city slickers!)

The issue is regulation. And I think it’d be better if we just allowed for taller buildings in some of these areas rather than sprawling out everything. Many people don’t want a SFH with a little yard and are happy with an apartment.

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

#84

Post by pdonis » Tue, May 12, 2020, 5:09 PM UTC

marcosdumay wrote: post #72

BurningFrog wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say it's very hard to find any violent revolutions that improved a society. It's pretty much a long line of tragedies. I count throwing out a foreign oppressor, like the American revolution or the Czech "velvet revolution" as a separate category. Those can be good.

There were plenty of violent revolutions that stopped early enough to make gains. (At around the French one, England had a few.) But any revolution that lasts enough to make into the popular definition of the word will cost more than it gains.

> At around the French one, England had a few.

The USA had one too.

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

#85

Post by GordonS » Tue, May 12, 2020, 5:10 PM UTC

throwlaplace wrote: post #51

Dominisi wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, I think he is pointing out that if more remote work becomes the norm, urban areas will see an exodus to more rural, cheaper areas to live, and the demand for living spaces will decrease lowering the costs of rent in urban areas where most poor people live.

No he's saying that less commuting will help the environment and that that's worth sacrificing poor people's jobs. I'm saying I disagree because if the goal were maximizing some kind of utility function then I have an even better solution. Re your point: obviously you're unfamiliar with the effects of white flight to the suburbs on inner cities. White people (read: wealthy people) have already made that migration in…

> he's saying ... that that's worth sacrificing poor people's jobs

I'm not sure we read the same comment - I didn't read anything about sacrificing anyone's jobs.

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

#86

Post by jokit » Tue, May 12, 2020, 5:10 PM UTC

There is no situation where those with more resources don't have more resources. The best we can achieve is that each rightfully earns their resources.

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

#87

Post by kerkeslager » Tue, May 12, 2020, 5:12 PM UTC

ashtonkem wrote: post #4

The suggestion that governments can close the remote working gap is not very well thought out. 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.

There are two ways you can close the gap between low-income, in-person work, and high-income, remote work:

1. The straw man you're suggesting: get rid of remote work. This is obviously not universally possible.

2. Pay in-person workers more. Because you know, if someone is essential enough to die for their work, maybe they are also essential enough to be included in the American dream of owning their own home and car.

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

#88

Post by scollet » Tue, May 12, 2020, 5:13 PM UTC

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.

> one of the functions of the ideological arm of capitalism is to argue that determining fair wage for a low-ranked laborer is so inscrutable that only "the market" can do it fairly, ...

You have not interpreted the comment correctly. This is deterministic. A capitalistic system or game has naturally emergent behaviors, but the propaganda excusing and defending the reluctance to add egalitarian rules is very much deterministic.

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

#89

Post by pdonis » Tue, May 12, 2020, 5:13 PM UTC

spugody wrote: post #53

aabeshou wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

come on, it's really not that complicated. just pay people a fair wage.

Who defines what a fair wage is?

In a free market, the market does.

In most actual cases, some combination of a sort of free market, monopolies over labor (unions) and capital (large corporations), and government regulation does.

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

#90

Post by sokoloff » Tue, May 12, 2020, 5:13 PM UTC

throwlaplace wrote: post #79

sokoloff wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Houses get cleaned and other service jobs get done in suburbs too.

but now the poor people have to commute to the suburbs completely negating the environmental benefits lol

If they're unable to move, that's 100% right. If they're able to move, even if it's just closer, it could still be a win.