4 ms·

This is a pretty awful, clickbaity title. The implication is that remote work is bad for low-income earners, but that’s not the case. Inequality isn’t bad by it

This is a pretty awful, clickbaity title. The implication is that remote work is bad for low-income earners, but that’s not the case. Inequality isn’t bad by itself. If some people are doing better without others being impacted, how could that be bad?

throwaway2048 6y ago
The problem is the assumption you are making is that others aren't being impacted.
- GordonS 6y ago
  OK, but how are they impacted?
freefriedrice 6y ago
The statement is sound: Inequality will always exist. But this worsens it because people with remote jobs earn more money by luck: they happened to pick the right job for a pandemic. Just like being born into a rich family means you will be rich without having to ever work for it, or even consider it. The deeper question is: how does a civilized society respond to this? By saying: "You die now, loser, LOLZ", or through years of sufficient planning and preparation for emergency situations like this? Personally, I think as a society we are long past the "die now loser" phase, and can definitely supply resources to even-out this temporary dip for the most impacted. However, I'm from the US, and 40% of the country wants to shoot me for believing anything but bootstraps and social darwinism.
kerkeslager 6y ago
This is a pretty awful, irrelevant post. The current situation is bad for low income earners, because remote work is not available for most low income earners. Some people are doing better while others are being impacted. You're not wrong about a hypothetical situation in which low income earners aren't impacted, but your post reads a lot like using that hypothetical situation to draw attention away from problems which exist in reality.
- RHSeeger 6y ago
  The fact that some people are helped is not, by itself, a negative impact for the people that aren't being helped. The negatives (caused by the virus) are mitigated by the positive (of being able to work remotely) for some people. But that doesn't put the negatives at the feet of being able to work remotely. To put forth a really bad analogy... the fact that there is a cure for some cancers doesn't mean the cure is negatively impacting people with cancers that cannot be cured. The incurable cancers are negatively impacting them. The cures (for the ones that can be cured) are purely a positive.
  - kerkeslager 6y ago
    Sure, it's not our fault as remote workers that in-person workers are suffering right now. I, for one remote worker, did not feel that anyone was accusing me of causing this inequality, but hey, if you really feel the need to get defensive about something nobody is accusing you of, then I'll be happy to say explicitly say that I'm not accusing remote workers of causing this inequality. Can we actually talk about real problems now? The actual cause of inequality is people who control pay, unsurprisingly deciding to pay themselves vastly more than people who don't have the power to control their own pay. There's a reasonable argument to be said that the work of those who determine the pay is more valuable than their workers, but I don't think that we can argue that the proportions are justified. If workers are essential enough to risk their lives, then can we agree that they're essential enough to be participate in the American dream by being able to own their own homes and cars?
- GordonS 6y ago
  > This is a pretty awful, irrelevant post. Remote work is bad for low income earners, because it's not available for most low income earners. Some people are doing better while others are being impacted. I don't understand your agreement. How exactly is remote work bad because it's not available to those working physical jobs? I also don't understand what you mean about being "impacted" - how does people working remotely negatively affect those that don't? If remote working was to really gain traction, I can only see potential positives - I'd expect house price inflation to reduce in cities, and I'd expect overcrowded public transport in those cities to become much more comfortable.
jakelazaroff 6y ago
This is a very convenient position to take as someone who presumably falls into the "doing better" group. If we are to improve people's working conditions, why would we focus those efforts on those who already have it better? Put another way: if one group's salary averages $150,000/year while another's averages $40,000/year, and the first gets annual raises while the second stays mostly flat… can you see why that's bad?
marcusverus 6y ago
Inequality is only bad for low-income earners if you've been convinced that the economy is a zero-sum game. Nobody actually believes this, it just makes good copy for purposes of rabble-rousing. If you think that wealth inequality is, itself, a bad thing, then ask yourself a simple question: If you create a software company that employs 200 employees making a median income of 125K, is that a good thing? But how can it be, when it has exacerbated wealth inequality? In my humble opinion, inequality is bad only in the minds of people who want to fund their political wishlists with other people's money, and need to spin a narrative where not taking other people's money is morally wrong.
- TFYS 6y ago
  Inequality itself is bad for many reasons. It creates a rift between people, causing feelings of envy and unfairness, increasing crime. It concentrates powers into fewer hands, and concentration of power rarely results in something good for the general population.
spideymans 6y ago
That’s not the implication of the title, that’s merely how you’ve decided to interpret it. We can recognize an idea is good while also recognizing that it has faults.

throwaway2048 6y ago

The problem is the assumption you are making is that others aren't being impacted.

GordonS 6y ago
OK, but how are they impacted?

freefriedrice 6y ago

The statement is sound: Inequality will always exist. But this worsens it because people with remote jobs earn more money by luck: they happened to pick the right job for a pandemic. Just like being born into a rich family means you will be rich without having to ever work for it, or even consider it. The deeper question is: how does a civilized society respond to this? By saying: "You die now, loser, LOLZ", or through years of sufficient planning and preparation for emergency situations like this? Personally, I think as a society we are long past the "die now loser" phase, and can definitely supply resources to even-out this temporary dip for the most impacted. However, I'm from the US, and 40% of the country wants to shoot me for believing anything but bootstraps and social darwinism.

kerkeslager 6y ago

This is a pretty awful, irrelevant post. The current situation is bad for low income earners, because remote work is not available for most low income earners. Some people are doing better while others are being impacted. You're not wrong about a hypothetical situation in which low income earners aren't impacted, but your post reads a lot like using that hypothetical situation to draw attention away from problems which exist in reality.

RHSeeger 6y ago
The fact that some people are helped is not, by itself, a negative impact for the people that aren't being helped. The negatives (caused by the virus) are mitigated by the positive (of being able to work remotely) for some people. But that doesn't put the negatives at the feet of being able to work remotely. To put forth a really bad analogy... the fact that there is a cure for some cancers doesn't mean the cure is negatively impacting people with cancers that cannot be cured. The incurable cancers are negatively impacting them. The cures (for the ones that can be cured) are purely a positive.
- kerkeslager 6y ago
  Sure, it's not our fault as remote workers that in-person workers are suffering right now. I, for one remote worker, did not feel that anyone was accusing me of causing this inequality, but hey, if you really feel the need to get defensive about something nobody is accusing you of, then I'll be happy to say explicitly say that I'm not accusing remote workers of causing this inequality. Can we actually talk about real problems now? The actual cause of inequality is people who control pay, unsurprisingly deciding to pay themselves vastly more than people who don't have the power to control their own pay. There's a reasonable argument to be said that the work of those who determine the pay is more valuable than their workers, but I don't think that we can argue that the proportions are justified. If workers are essential enough to risk their lives, then can we agree that they're essential enough to be participate in the American dream by being able to own their own homes and cars?
GordonS 6y ago
> This is a pretty awful, irrelevant post. Remote work is bad for low income earners, because it's not available for most low income earners. Some people are doing better while others are being impacted. I don't understand your agreement. How exactly is remote work bad because it's not available to those working physical jobs? I also don't understand what you mean about being "impacted" - how does people working remotely negatively affect those that don't? If remote working was to really gain traction, I can only see potential positives - I'd expect house price inflation to reduce in cities, and I'd expect overcrowded public transport in those cities to become much more comfortable.

jakelazaroff 6y ago

This is a very convenient position to take as someone who presumably falls into the "doing better" group. If we are to improve people's working conditions, why would we focus those efforts on those who already have it better? Put another way: if one group's salary averages $150,000/year while another's averages $40,000/year, and the first gets annual raises while the second stays mostly flat… can you see why that's bad?

marcusverus 6y ago

Inequality is only bad for low-income earners if you've been convinced that the economy is a zero-sum game. Nobody actually believes this, it just makes good copy for purposes of rabble-rousing. If you think that wealth inequality is, itself, a bad thing, then ask yourself a simple question: If you create a software company that employs 200 employees making a median income of 125K, is that a good thing? But how can it be, when it has exacerbated wealth inequality? In my humble opinion, inequality is bad only in the minds of people who want to fund their political wishlists with other people's money, and need to spin a narrative where not taking other people's money is morally wrong.

TFYS 6y ago
Inequality itself is bad for many reasons. It creates a rift between people, causing feelings of envy and unfairness, increasing crime. It concentrates powers into fewer hands, and concentration of power rarely results in something good for the general population.

spideymans 6y ago

That’s not the implication of the title, that’s merely how you’ve decided to interpret it. We can recognize an idea is good while also recognizing that it has faults.