Live data from Hacker News

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

news.ycombinator.com

221–230 of 508 posts

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

#221
post #99

It's because the whole climate thing is a ruse to scare us into cbdc/surveillance/control. Yes there's climate change, Yes there's human influence to it. And well sure as hell adapt to this slow moving challenge.

I'm glad the majority of the world disagrees with you.

The elite sure do disagree with me publicly but still fly privately, buy up ocean frontage, ignore lower hanging fruit in favour of schemes that enrich them. And we all vote them in again and again.

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

#223
post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I mean yes and. There's an entire industry of restaurants that cater to providing food to workers in business districts. They move to where the people are. I don't think suburban neighborhoods having hyperlocal businesses would ever be considered a bad thing.

Well, the comment up the chain implied that more demand for businesses would result in suburbs getting more walkable.

I was implying that the demand would likely be met with strip-malls and residents would still drive everywhere.

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

#224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio... , page 7 Average commute time in NYC MSA is 37.7 minutes, longest of any major MSA in the country. DC MSA is 35.6 minutes. Only ~23% of NYC have commutes longer than hour, and ~18% in DC. (Note: statistics are using 2019 data, so doesn't account for anything COVID related, and people who don't commute are excluded from the statistics.)

Must be nice to own a place in Dumbo or Nassau County.

Out here, in the affordable section, it's not as easy.

When I lived in the DC suburbs, 32 years ago, I lived in Gaithersburg, MD. I worked in Rockville (1 exit south, on I-270). Six miles, as the crow flies.

My daily commute was 45 minutes.

I-270 is a charming bit of tarmac. It's a 12-lane parking lot, that stretches from Frederick, to the Beltway.

I have no idea where those stats come from, but they sure as hell don't reflect the reality, around here.

Reality has a nasty way of not caring what the stats say.

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

#226

There is nothing more illogical in modern society than commuting to an office every day. Employees waste 2 of their 16 available waking hours in the non-productive commute while incurring significant financial costs (lease/insurance/fuel/energy) in order to support this patently absurd activity. Employers waste time and energy negotiating leases, re-arranging offices, purchasing AV equipment for meeting rooms, etc.,…

> Employees waste 2 of their 16 I suspect that you don't commute to a large city (either via car or mass transit). It's more like 4-6 hours. Crazy.

I commute from a large-ish city to its suburb, my commute is 15-18 minutes. Anecdotes are not data... average commute in the US is like 20-30mins. I suspect most people who can be fully remote (i.e. are not in service industry) can afford to move instead of commuting 3 hours one way.

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

#227
post #116

I actually don't know the answer to this question and what baffles me the most is hearing what urban/transport activists have to say about that - those I talked with either ignore it completely or argue that it's worse because it "induces sprawl". I have quite a few people in my social circle who moved out to the suburbs/countryside and remote work was by and large considered only after they moved and found that they…

> I talked with either ignore it completely or argue that it's worse because it "induces sprawl". But, sprawl is only a problem because of commutes. If you had sprawl with lots of small, local commercial outlets, then that's just perfect. No long commutes to work and no long commutes to get life's necessities.

Even if you stop moving people, you still have to move goods (and electricity, and sewage) which is less efficient if the people are spread over a larger area.

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

#228
post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's also incredibly lonely at times - despite being constantly surrounded by people - which I figure can warp your mind much like too much solitary confinement can. I don't say this from personal experience (un)fortunately, I say this as someone who has a family member that is a confidant of a billionaire from the middle-east (whom I'll refer to as Bob.) The family member is one of their close staff - travels with t…

The increase of wealth and fame leads to an increase of isolation and decrease of safety and trust.

Beyond a certain point, as a “known wealthy person”, you will never know if a romantic partner cares about you or your wealth. Same for your friends. Relatives. Anybody.

You will not be able to do things you’ve taken for granted - like go to the pub or to a restaurant or on a hike or ride your bike on the bike path - without additional effort and people.

Very, very lonely and depressing.

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

#229

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).…

Exactly this is the reason, but I'll go even further and say that no corporation will advertise something "green" that might require actual effort on their part. The clear fact is that environmental impact is almost entirely the fault of corporations. Advertising for consumers to do anything to impact this is distracting them from the real issue: the corporations advertising to them.

It is for this reason that you will never find anything that makes sense advertised as green or efficient. Corporations are things that exist solely to exploit: nothing in their core impulses moves them to be kind or understanding. Anything that makes it seem otherwise must be regarded with suspicion.

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

#230

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…

This. FFS who wants to stay home to live and work!?!? I don’t understand WFH. the right way is to have better public transport and cheaper housing, not secluded lives.
Post reply on HN