Hacker News Reader

Comment by 5350-uiop-1130 | Hacker News Reader

maybe it does not work within your current paradigms.

people never considered widescale remote work as an option, when it became a necessity, we found a way to make it work.

i don't like blanket "it cant work" statements - not possible for one person to have the perspective to make such a judgement.

people deserve to live a life of dignity, what's the point of progress if it does not benefit all of us. not everything has to be driven by cold hearted free market ideas. we did not choose to exist.

View on HN

Remote work has been functional for years before COVID hit and forced a migration.

It was always a middle layer management that was against and they still don't love it.

That aside, UBI when centralized through a bureaucracy is doomed to failure, ala the human condition, find a way to decentralize it and encourage human agency through an open system of shared, public, and private equity holdings..then maybe..(yeah I'm talking blockchain).

Remote work existed long before covid and had some great successful examples across both America and in Europe. I worked fully remote for the past decade. I used HN often to find good remote jobs.

It was easy to see that remote work could work in more environments given the right push. Software and technology ultimately needed to improve and it absolutely has.

Now compare to UBI, it's just not feasible. We see countries with extreme inflation and how bad it is, we see that UBI requires tyranny to work, it's just not comparable to remote work in any way.

> people never considered widescale remote work as an option, when it became a necessity, we found a way to make it work.

That's literally untrue. Almost every job I've ever had has had some element of WFH for the last 20 years. Even if your false supposition were correct it wouldn't be remotely related or comparable.

> people deserve to live a life of dignity, what's the point of progress if it does not benefit all of us. not everything has to be driven by cold hearted free market ideas. we did not choose to exist.

As predicted above - imposition of an unsubstantiated widespread victimhood used to inversely justify a need rather than a natural driver for it.

> what's the point of progress if it does not benefit all of us

What's the point of getting an ice cream if not everyone gets one?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com