3 ms·
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 mitig
by 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 agoSure, 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?