Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 508 posts

Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?

#201

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

elijaht wrote: post #160
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come to New York, then. I have sad news for you. DC was even worse.

I'm in NJ- my commute into the city is an hour. Most people that I know of have commutes in the 30-90 minute range, throughout NJ, NYC, and Connecticut

I live in Western Suffolk County. I never commuted to the City, but many of my friends do.

Driving is 90 minutes, if you leave at 5AM. Train is 2 hours (including in-city time).

Many folks commute from even farther East.

Please don’t tell me that I’m “insane.” I would never have done that commute, myself, but have lived here for over 30 years, and have seen (with my own little eyes), people doing this every day.

Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?

#202

Post by ljf »

ibejoeb wrote: post #188
Someone1234 wrote: post #46

Because corporations are doing the majority of that pro-environmental advertising. I mean that both in terms of companies making changes (both real and greenwashing) and the News/Media corporations reporting on it. Telecommuting could be absolutely massive for reduced emissions, could bring down urban house prices, improve inter-family relationships, and revitalized suburban neighborhoods (e.g. more walkable areas).…

I don't intend to de-rail the convo, but this is an important one. > improve inter-family relationships It could , maybe, but it can also be a significant source of strife. It's tough spending all day, every day with someone. Because of that, you find that people are either looking for larger homes in order to have private work spaces or renting office space. Both of those shift the cost burden from the company to th…

You are very right - I am very lucky to have a shed/office I can hide away in and get some great work done in. I'd say it is a far better and more comfortable space than any office I've worked in. But when I had to work at the kitchen table with my wife and family in other rooms in the house it was so much harder.

For those with room, especially if you have a good sized commute, remote working is great (I really really value being able to eat with my kids and hang out in the evening), but you are right that if you are two people in a small 1 bed flat, or a few people in a house share, or just a family in a standard family house, then yes remote working is not always going to be a bonus.

Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?

#204

Post by xwdv »

ibejoeb wrote: post #188
Someone1234 wrote: post #46

Because corporations are doing the majority of that pro-environmental advertising. I mean that both in terms of companies making changes (both real and greenwashing) and the News/Media corporations reporting on it. Telecommuting could be absolutely massive for reduced emissions, could bring down urban house prices, improve inter-family relationships, and revitalized suburban neighborhoods (e.g. more walkable areas).…

I don't intend to de-rail the convo, but this is an important one. > improve inter-family relationships It could , maybe, but it can also be a significant source of strife. It's tough spending all day, every day with someone. Because of that, you find that people are either looking for larger homes in order to have private work spaces or renting office space. Both of those shift the cost burden from the company to th…

Alternatively, because of the expectation that partners will not be around 24/7, people may have been selecting sub-optimal partners. If remote work becomes the norm your standards for a long term partner may become higher as you need to ensure you do not get tired of being around them.

Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?

#205

Post by silverpepsi »

ibejoeb wrote: post #188
Someone1234 wrote: post #46

Because corporations are doing the majority of that pro-environmental advertising. I mean that both in terms of companies making changes (both real and greenwashing) and the News/Media corporations reporting on it. Telecommuting could be absolutely massive for reduced emissions, could bring down urban house prices, improve inter-family relationships, and revitalized suburban neighborhoods (e.g. more walkable areas).…

I don't intend to de-rail the convo, but this is an important one. > improve inter-family relationships It could , maybe, but it can also be a significant source of strife. It's tough spending all day, every day with someone. Because of that, you find that people are either looking for larger homes in order to have private work spaces or renting office space. Both of those shift the cost burden from the company to th…

Is the term "improve relationships" even appropriate as a "goal" when children are involved? As a 12-17 year old, there was nothing more awesome than having the house to myself, no parents. Relationships were better, as lower contact hours means less harassment and less use of each other as an emotional punching bag.

However, contact hours are desirable for actual child rearing outcomes. Lingusitic development in the early years = has a huge impact on vocabulary development with college-educated parents and for older kids discipline... two brothers grew up being watched like a hawk by my mom. Two younger ones grew up as latchkey kids once she went back to work. Outcomes were quite different.

Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?

#206

Post by closeparen »

tluyben2 wrote: post #32
chitowneats wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree. Ever since WFH started I'm feeling this gravitational pull away from the city center because of cost of living and space considerations. If salary takes a nosedive this will become untenable for many. Mountains of research show that this will increase total emissions. It would be one thing if the U.S. was developing medium density suburban cores, but that seems to be on the table in very, very few…

That seems more a US thing though because of how things are laid out? I picked my multiple places of living (EU) to have everything walking distance and I managed that for the past 30 years with wfh, city or not. We don't touch the car (or anything else) for weeks on end.

Walkable places are the exception in the US. Most old small towns were walkable at some point, and a handful of them have a walkable core preserved or restored, but otherwise it's something you'd only find in the downtown area of a major city. The overwhelming majority of housing is car dependent.

Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?

#207

Post by ljf »

ako wrote: post #193
osigurdson wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Or does he want you to get back into your office and work a 16 hour day? I'm OK with working 16 hour days on something that matters (obviously burn out needs to be kept in check - it can't be done forever). I realize that I might be "wired" differently than others as I care a bit less about work life balance and more about accomplishment (not proud of it). I see no reason why this can't be done at the beach house…

Not sure how a 16 hour workday fits if you also need to sleep, shop, cook, clean, take care of the kids, keep in contact with your friends and family, and exercise.

It doesn't - unless you need very little sleep.

I had a crunch delivery before we had kids, and it was hell. In the office by 9, leaving around 3 or even 4am. 'Luckily' the office paid for cabs and food and tried to make it as good as they good for us, but I didn't see friends, barely saw my wife and felt rotten at the weekends.

BUT, we delivered some amazing work, was well compensated, and otherwise rewarded by the company. Many of those who did the work are still there and still rate it as a place to be. It was a one off that we all swore off repeating, but I don't regret it or the work we delivered.

Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?

#208

Post by beebmam »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #158
bilekas wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Musk's text message conversation during Twitter-lawsuit discovery I only saw this now : https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/09/elon-... It's actually kind of incredible how it all seems to work. The cringe too of the fawning is a good indicator why Musk feels he can do whatever he likes, including attempting to troll everyone on his board. It seems so juvenile.

Important to note that wealth doesn't improve your character; it simply amplifies who you already are.

Power corrupts.

Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?

#209

Post by neutronicus »

rustybelt wrote: post #172
_huayra_ wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and revitalized suburban neighborhoods (e.g. more walkable areas) Without other changes, this would not happen (in the US at least). The default would be every more cookie-cutter suburban sprawl, with the cul-de-sac-y construction of these neighborhoods creating a more labrynthian, difficult-to-walk place to live. Until there is more mixed-use zoning in the US, with high enough density to justify frequent public tr…

I disagree, yes zoning changes could be needed, but the presence of more daytime workers at home in suburban areas creates new opportunities for restaurants, coffee shops, and other conveniences that cater to those workers.

Right, so the main road will have a Starbucks off it

Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?

#210

Post by Spivak »

makestuff wrote: post #189
Someone1234 wrote: post #46

Because corporations are doing the majority of that pro-environmental advertising. I mean that both in terms of companies making changes (both real and greenwashing) and the News/Media corporations reporting on it. Telecommuting could be absolutely massive for reduced emissions, could bring down urban house prices, improve inter-family relationships, and revitalized suburban neighborhoods (e.g. more walkable areas).…

Aren't suburban neighborhoods actually bad for the environment though. Also the lack population density makes it hard to support the infrastructure costs for a large area with fewer people.

It's complicated, so yes because the reasons you state but in a world where significantly fewer people commute it becomes less of an issue and so it's a matter of changing the things we can change.

So yes, wouldn't it be great people lived in denser environments? Oh yeah, but that's not the choice we're making today. The choice we're making is given that lots of people live a 20-60 minute drive from their jobs would we rather they commute into work or work remotely?

Post reply on HN