News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why assessing the state of the world is harder than it so... by CompelTechnic on Friday July 20, 2018 @07:55AM (#17574243)
For anyone interested in the facts of what goes into the cpi-u (or -w) basket rather than opinion, here is a breakdown of the weights going into the basket of goods and services. The date is a bit stale, from 2015-2016, but good nonetheless.

https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/relative-importance/2017.txt

https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/relative-importance/home.htm#...

notably, top-level breakdowns are: Food and beverages 14.359

Housing 41.772

Apparel 3.018

Recreation 5.737

Transportation 16.537

Medical care 8.673

Education and communication 6.707

Other goods and services 3.198

Interestingly, if you dig into the data, you can see some interesting patterns of consumer spending. For example, women's and girl's apparel spending is 66% larger than men's and boy's apparel! Also, motor vehicle maintenance and repair is only weighted as 1.123% of spending, which is a lot less than I would have guessed given people's horror stories.

Breaking down the housing category, the combined values of rent and owner's equivalent of rent make up more than 30% of the basket. This has risen by about 5% (of the whole basket) since 1987. I doubt that that category is being evaluated too low in a substantial way. Rent by itself is only 7.8% of the basket, which may mean that the basket is fairly insensitive to people being gouged by their landlords.

If you live in a fancy metro, your rent will be above average compared to the nation. This is to be expected.

I am surprised that medical is only 8-9%. This has risen from 5.8% in 1987. I expect that the reason it is so low is that the average person spends 80% of their life having tiny medical bills and 20% of their life having huge ones.

By looking at which categories have shrunk in their weightings over time, you can get a feel for what goods/services are cheaper now than in the past OR that people now choose substitute goods instead of. Certain categories have no substitute, i.e. medical. If you squint at the data real hard you can eke out where you personally are getting reamed more than past-you would have. Some actionable advice would be to consider which services have gotten more expensive due to Baumol's Cost Disease (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol%27s_cost_disease) and do your best to DIY them.

Re:Why assessing the state of the world is harder than it so... by rwallace on Friday July 20, 2018 @08:38AM (#17574476)
> If you live in a fancy metro, your rent will be above average compared to the nation.

The problem with this view is that places that a few decades ago would have counted as 'fancy metros' are now more accurately described as 'the only places where there are any jobs (the wages of which are still often insufficient to pay for housing)'.

Which leads to another actionable suggestion: we should stop tolerating failure to hire remote workers. (Yes, I know the excuses. We should also stop tolerating those excuses.)

Re:Why assessing the state of the world is harder than it so... by CompelTechnic on Friday July 20, 2018 @09:13AM (#17574666)
If you want to make this thread objective and actionable, keep it realistic.

There are thriving mid-size cities and towns across the U.S where rent doesn't eat your total paycheck. I live in one of them. The data above supports this. 41% of consumption on total housing category has only moved down slightly, from 42% in 1987.

Remote work should be more encouraged, I agree.

Re:Why assessing the state of the world is harder than it so... by crusso on Friday July 20, 2018 @08:57AM (#17574569)
we should stop tolerating failure to hire remote workers

What are you suggesting?

Re:Why assessing the state of the world is harder than it so... by rwallace on Friday July 20, 2018 @09:10AM (#17574646)
I'm suggesting that we treat discrimination against remote workers the way we treated some other forms of harmful discrimination in hiring: stop doing it, stop accepting or repeating excuses for doing it, stop tolerating companies doing it, and ultimately make it illegal.
Re:Why assessing the state of the world is harder than it so... by CompelTechnic on Friday July 20, 2018 @09:16AM (#17574688)
Remote workers are not a protected class, and there is no reason to make them a pretected class, considering the reality that lots of jobs require a physical presence. Calling it discrimination implies that there is a permanent population of people who are capable of working, but can only possibly work if they do not have to commute, and that they are being oppressed because of this. It is not discrimination so much as it's a case of society having a different set of preferences than you.
Re:Why assessing the state of the world is harder than it so... by ben_w on Friday July 20, 2018 @11:50AM (#17576013)
GP is giving an economic rather than a social justice reason for making it a protected class.

I don’t think I agree with him, but that doesn’t make it “not a reason”.

Reason I disagree with him is that if workplaces rearrange themselves to not need physical presence, all the jobs suddenly get done by whichever genuinely third world nation can put high bandwidth internet connection into literal shantytown slums the fastest.

If this was a gradual and planned-for change, starting with boosting the salary expectations of the poorest in the world up to our level, that’s one thing. Doing it to solve housing cost differences between rural and urban areas in developed nations will just blow up in everyone’s faces with unhandled side-effects.

Re:Why assessing the state of the world is harder than it so... by crusso on Friday July 20, 2018 @10:57AM (#17575496)
Disclosure: I've been a remote worker full-time for the last 5 years. I travel to the office a few days a month.

There are many natural reasons why being physically in an office is advantageous. I can have face-to-face meetings with multiple people without conference call issues, I'm available to go visit clients local to the office, interactions with colleagues are just easier due to proximity, I hear the office cross-talk that is unavailable when you're remote, I form closer personal relationships with my colleagues because of countless unplanned interactions, I can perform physical tasks like installing servers, etc.

Granted, there are disadvantages to working locally too - but the complex mix of advantages and disadvantages feed into the decisions that everyone makes in how they run their businesses, where they choose to be employed, etc.

Does it not concern you that you're advocating overriding all of that decision making with some one-size-fits-all government policy that would criminalize people simply working the way they wish to?

Re:Why assessing the state of the world is harder than it so... by tomrod on Friday July 20, 2018 @10:22AM (#17575190)
Sounds like a nice ideal. I'm an economist. The first thing that comes to mind is the technology infrastructure costs required to maintain a potentially all remote workforce. A central location is better for a number of different workstreams. The second thing that comes to mind is unintended consequences. Are all jobs remote? Bakers? Doctors? Nuclear firmware upgrades?