6 ms·

It seems from the comments that a lot of the readers here equate "let's look at socioeconomic inequality" with "let's make sure everyone has the same socioecono

It seems from the comments that a lot of the readers here equate "let's look at socioeconomic inequality" with "let's make sure everyone has the same socioeconomic outcome by bringing down the people who earn more." This is... a leap not found in this article. The idea is to make sure that we realize the knock-on effects of changes in the workforce / society and take measures to make sure people who have the ability to succeed aren't sidelined because of it. Seriously, some of these remedies should be fairly uncontroversial here: -Giving people computers -Making sure people have access to broadband -Looking at industries with low income workers and seeing if the governments can nudge them into the WFH model, so they can start to realize some of the positive outcomes that presents, which in some cases would be far more valuable to low-income workers. Imagine if a single mother working for $20k a year at an office could do that work from home? This topic is ripe for inventive ways to use technology to raise up individuals who have been traditionally left out. But for some reason the 6-fig crowd is reacting negative to a headline that uses the term "socioeconomic inequality."

jupiter-nave 6y ago
While I agree with your point, in a spirit of fairness, I think a lot of people are tired of being bludgeoned with "implication" rhetoric. "Socioeconomic inequality" is a pretty loaded term and some people use it to make others feel guilty or attempt a sweeping indictment of the society we live in. Many economists and sociologists use it more in the sense of this article, but it's not surprising that such an overloaded term sets some people off.
- jkingsbery 6y ago
  I agree. A less antagonistic title would be "How to Expand the Benefits of Remote Work To All." While it is literally true that socioeconomic inequality is increasing, it is increasing because one side is better off in a way that takes nothing away from the other side.
gen220 6y ago
I agree, we should see this for what it is: an unmet need to make WFH possible for more people and more job functions. My two cents on how we might "use technology to raise up individuals who have been traditionally left out": Our company employs 800-1000 "support"/"operations"-type roles, who normally commute to a call-center-esque "office" near Phoenix, AZ. When COVID-19 happened, our (brilliant) IT team had them set up to work from home in a weekend, since our call center tech stack was based on chrome books, RBAC services, g-suite, and mostly self-hosted or non-proprietary business-specific software. This is not the typical story, but there's no reason it shouldn't be. In the graphs shared here by the article, sales and operations-type roles are an outlier in terms of percentage of the economy, and percentage of the economy that "has no opportunity" to work from home. So, while the need for support centers is higher than ever, most call centers are letting people go or reducing their hours, because they can't fill their offices to capacity any more. This has a huge impact on those workers, because they are now either unemployed or are unable to make rent. Call center software is really old, and its antiquity is currently holding these companies back in a way that hurts their bottom lines. If you can package this call-center-in-a-chromebook as a service, you can simultaneously reduce inequality and make the economy more efficient, by enabling a remote WFH call center job, for companies who hire support/ops roles in the 1000s+.
bsder 6y ago
> -Giving people computers > -Making sure people have access to broadband There should be a Rural Broadbandification Project set into motion so everybody gets fiber. This also has the advantage that it requires lots of labor like digging ditches. It also has the advantage that it would allow some of these high earners to move from turbo-high cost of living areas to much lower ones.
- gen220 6y ago
  I like the idea, as a kind of spiritual successor to the Federal Aid Highway Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aid_Highway_Act_of_1956 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aid_Highway_Act_of_195...), but for a different kind of transportation. I don't know if our congress could ever come together on something like this in 2020, but I'm sure some highly specific implementation could be found that everyone could more or less agree to. Is there any existing project or group campaigning for this idea?
  - xapata 6y ago
    That sounds like yet another wealth transfer from metro areas to rural areas. I understand that the US government is structured that way, by the creation of the Senate, but as a city-dweller, I'm not a fan. I'd rather pay for people to move, perhaps subsidizing housing where other services have competition and jobs are plentiful.
    - epicureanideal 6y ago
      Having at least some distributed population is a national asset in the event of conflict. Not to mention some people need to live in rural areas due to the nature of their work. Also, what’s it worth to you to enable rural America to have a similar enough lifestyle to you that you’re both more likely to consider yourselves the same sort of Americans? National cohesion is worth something.
      - xapata 6y ago
        I think there are enough decently-sized metropolitan areas that we'd be distributed well enough. > National cohesion is worth something There's been this bizarre fairytale of the noble yeoman running through American history, as if that were the true national identity. It's never been less true than today. I think a healthy unemployment benefit and permissive neighborhood zoning policies are sufficient to help them transition. If they're not willing to change, maybe their children will be.
xapata 6y ago
> Giving people computers Better is simply giving people money which they can use for their highest priorities, which may not be computers. > Access to broadband Competitive internet is available in larger metropolitan areas. If there's a mandate for some or all companies to provide access in rural areas, that must be subsidized by increased prices in metropolitan areas. This was accepted in the US for the bulk of the 20th century for the phone system, and resulted in amazing scientific discoveries from Bell Labs. One alternative to a rural internet bandwidth subsidy would be subsidizing relocation. Rather than encouraging people to continue to live where jobs are scarce and services are expensive, we could encourage them to move to where labor is scarce and services are competitively priced. > governments can nudge them into the WFH model What's the transition cost for switching from in-office to at-home employees? If it's not an issue of transition cost, I don't think the government should be in the business of subsidizing in-home employment on an ongoing basis. It would distort the market, discouraging jobs from hair dresser to dental assistant, thereby making those services more expensive (relatively).
- lukejduncan 6y ago
  "Competitive internet is available in larger metropolitan areas." I'd debate the competitive qualifier.
  - xapata 6y ago
    True. Some large metros are effectively owned by a monopoly. I'm lucky to live in a city with competitive broadband.
- kaitai 6y ago
  Employers should provide computers to employees who are WFH. It's the cost of doing business. Schools need to provide students with computers or computer access, as well; the coronavirus has certainly thrown a wrench into traditional distribution methods. Competitive internet in the US is almost an oxymoron. I have two choices here, and they magically always set the same price, which is no cheaper now than ten years ago. I can walk to a cocktail, a pour-over coffee, boutiques, and my choice of macaron or Parisian-style croissant, but I cannot get cheap and high-bandwidth internet. Subsidizing relocation is not the best alternative. Farming regions already suffer from a shortage of labor. It would be far better for one of a family to be able to get a good tech job while another in the family farms than the current state of affairs, where I know a farmer who actually commutes by his private plane to his second job as a college instructor. Farming is important, because food is important. No other service is expensive there, unless you want a Brazilian keratin treatment or something. Relocating the last of America's farmers is not a great answer. Last, I will get my teeth looked at as soon as it's possible, whether I'm WFH or not. You only get one set of adult teeth.
tathougies 6y ago
> Imagine if a single mother working for $20k a year at an office could do that work from home? Imagine if we applied this same kind of get-it-done thinking to wondering why there were so many women raising children on their own without support from the child's father?
- freehunter 6y ago
  But then we'd have to have a lot of politically and religiously uncomfortable conversations about contraception, birth control, and other forms of family planning. Not to mention sexual education.
  - kaitai 6y ago
    Well, we'd have to have lots of politically uncomfortable conversations about what manhood is and what our economy is providing at the lower end, too. One reason for so many unwed mothers is that "having a kid" is certainly part of 'manhood' as defined today, but "being married without a good job" is not. So guys wait to get a good job (spoiler alert: not in the cards) before marrying, and if not married, there's less incentive to be exclusive & involved. This is one big reason marriage rates are lower among poorer Americans. It's not bad that a guy wants a good job before he gets married -- it's bad that he's never gonna get one and his kid is going fatherless while he pursues that pipe dream.
- triyambakam 6y ago
  I agree. An example from my personal experience is Saiva Siddhanta that recommends couples remain married and only separate in cases of abuse.
- icebraining 6y ago
  Well, whatever the reason, the number has been falling steadily, so is there a need to do anything?
alexashka 6y ago
It is not the role of government to encourage working from home. It is also not the role of government to wipe your butt or provide you with toilet paper. What are these individuals who are 'traditionally left out' exactly? You mean people with idiot parents or no parents? We can easily fix that, but that'd involve oops, actually facing reality and wanting to solve problems instead of engaging in cries for re-distribution of resources someone else has created.

jupiter-nave 6y ago

While I agree with your point, in a spirit of fairness, I think a lot of people are tired of being bludgeoned with "implication" rhetoric. "Socioeconomic inequality" is a pretty loaded term and some people use it to make others feel guilty or attempt a sweeping indictment of the society we live in. Many economists and sociologists use it more in the sense of this article, but it's not surprising that such an overloaded term sets some people off.

jkingsbery 6y ago
I agree. A less antagonistic title would be "How to Expand the Benefits of Remote Work To All." While it is literally true that socioeconomic inequality is increasing, it is increasing because one side is better off in a way that takes nothing away from the other side.

gen220 6y ago

I agree, we should see this for what it is: an unmet need to make WFH possible for more people and more job functions. My two cents on how we might "use technology to raise up individuals who have been traditionally left out": Our company employs 800-1000 "support"/"operations"-type roles, who normally commute to a call-center-esque "office" near Phoenix, AZ. When COVID-19 happened, our (brilliant) IT team had them set up to work from home in a weekend, since our call center tech stack was based on chrome books, RBAC services, g-suite, and mostly self-hosted or non-proprietary business-specific software. This is not the typical story, but there's no reason it shouldn't be. In the graphs shared here by the article, sales and operations-type roles are an outlier in terms of percentage of the economy, and percentage of the economy that "has no opportunity" to work from home. So, while the need for support centers is higher than ever, most call centers are letting people go or reducing their hours, because they can't fill their offices to capacity any more. This has a huge impact on those workers, because they are now either unemployed or are unable to make rent. Call center software is really old, and its antiquity is currently holding these companies back in a way that hurts their bottom lines. If you can package this call-center-in-a-chromebook as a service, you can simultaneously reduce inequality and make the economy more efficient, by enabling a remote WFH call center job, for companies who hire support/ops roles in the 1000s+.

bsder 6y ago

> -Giving people computers > -Making sure people have access to broadband There should be a Rural Broadbandification Project set into motion so everybody gets fiber. This also has the advantage that it requires lots of labor like digging ditches. It also has the advantage that it would allow some of these high earners to move from turbo-high cost of living areas to much lower ones.

gen220 6y ago
I like the idea, as a kind of spiritual successor to the Federal Aid Highway Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aid_Highway_Act_of_1956 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aid_Highway_Act_of_195...), but for a different kind of transportation. I don't know if our congress could ever come together on something like this in 2020, but I'm sure some highly specific implementation could be found that everyone could more or less agree to. Is there any existing project or group campaigning for this idea?
- xapata 6y ago
  That sounds like yet another wealth transfer from metro areas to rural areas. I understand that the US government is structured that way, by the creation of the Senate, but as a city-dweller, I'm not a fan. I'd rather pay for people to move, perhaps subsidizing housing where other services have competition and jobs are plentiful.
  - epicureanideal 6y ago
    Having at least some distributed population is a national asset in the event of conflict. Not to mention some people need to live in rural areas due to the nature of their work. Also, what’s it worth to you to enable rural America to have a similar enough lifestyle to you that you’re both more likely to consider yourselves the same sort of Americans? National cohesion is worth something.
    - xapata 6y ago
      I think there are enough decently-sized metropolitan areas that we'd be distributed well enough. > National cohesion is worth something There's been this bizarre fairytale of the noble yeoman running through American history, as if that were the true national identity. It's never been less true than today. I think a healthy unemployment benefit and permissive neighborhood zoning policies are sufficient to help them transition. If they're not willing to change, maybe their children will be.

xapata 6y ago

> Giving people computers Better is simply giving people money which they can use for their highest priorities, which may not be computers. > Access to broadband Competitive internet is available in larger metropolitan areas. If there's a mandate for some or all companies to provide access in rural areas, that must be subsidized by increased prices in metropolitan areas. This was accepted in the US for the bulk of the 20th century for the phone system, and resulted in amazing scientific discoveries from Bell Labs. One alternative to a rural internet bandwidth subsidy would be subsidizing relocation. Rather than encouraging people to continue to live where jobs are scarce and services are expensive, we could encourage them to move to where labor is scarce and services are competitively priced. > governments can nudge them into the WFH model What's the transition cost for switching from in-office to at-home employees? If it's not an issue of transition cost, I don't think the government should be in the business of subsidizing in-home employment on an ongoing basis. It would distort the market, discouraging jobs from hair dresser to dental assistant, thereby making those services more expensive (relatively).

lukejduncan 6y ago
"Competitive internet is available in larger metropolitan areas." I'd debate the competitive qualifier.
- xapata 6y ago
  True. Some large metros are effectively owned by a monopoly. I'm lucky to live in a city with competitive broadband.
kaitai 6y ago
Employers should provide computers to employees who are WFH. It's the cost of doing business. Schools need to provide students with computers or computer access, as well; the coronavirus has certainly thrown a wrench into traditional distribution methods. Competitive internet in the US is almost an oxymoron. I have two choices here, and they magically always set the same price, which is no cheaper now than ten years ago. I can walk to a cocktail, a pour-over coffee, boutiques, and my choice of macaron or Parisian-style croissant, but I cannot get cheap and high-bandwidth internet. Subsidizing relocation is not the best alternative. Farming regions already suffer from a shortage of labor. It would be far better for one of a family to be able to get a good tech job while another in the family farms than the current state of affairs, where I know a farmer who actually commutes by his private plane to his second job as a college instructor. Farming is important, because food is important. No other service is expensive there, unless you want a Brazilian keratin treatment or something. Relocating the last of America's farmers is not a great answer. Last, I will get my teeth looked at as soon as it's possible, whether I'm WFH or not. You only get one set of adult teeth.

tathougies 6y ago

> Imagine if a single mother working for $20k a year at an office could do that work from home? Imagine if we applied this same kind of get-it-done thinking to wondering why there were so many women raising children on their own without support from the child's father?

freehunter 6y ago
But then we'd have to have a lot of politically and religiously uncomfortable conversations about contraception, birth control, and other forms of family planning. Not to mention sexual education.
- kaitai 6y ago
  Well, we'd have to have lots of politically uncomfortable conversations about what manhood is and what our economy is providing at the lower end, too. One reason for so many unwed mothers is that "having a kid" is certainly part of 'manhood' as defined today, but "being married without a good job" is not. So guys wait to get a good job (spoiler alert: not in the cards) before marrying, and if not married, there's less incentive to be exclusive & involved. This is one big reason marriage rates are lower among poorer Americans. It's not bad that a guy wants a good job before he gets married -- it's bad that he's never gonna get one and his kid is going fatherless while he pursues that pipe dream.
triyambakam 6y ago
I agree. An example from my personal experience is Saiva Siddhanta that recommends couples remain married and only separate in cases of abuse.
icebraining 6y ago
Well, whatever the reason, the number has been falling steadily, so is there a need to do anything?

alexashka 6y ago

It is not the role of government to encourage working from home. It is also not the role of government to wipe your butt or provide you with toilet paper. What are these individuals who are 'traditionally left out' exactly? You mean people with idiot parents or no parents? We can easily fix that, but that'd involve oops, actually facing reality and wanting to solve problems instead of engaging in cries for re-distribution of resources someone else has created.