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

341–350 of 508 posts

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

#341

Post by IOT_Apprentice »

MarcoSanto wrote: post #230
ibejoeb wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People aren't going to get better public transport or cheaper housing in the USA. I want to stay home and live and work. I've done it once before over a decade ago and doing it now as a result of the pandemic and I love it.

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

#342

Post by akgerber »

anikom15 wrote: post #333
Spivak wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The incentive to live in a dense environment is being close to work. If work is at home then that incentive is gone.

A dense environment also has a lot of daily destinations within walking distance. That's also very nice when one works from home— either working from home in my Brooklyn apartment, or working from home at my parents' house in a Midwestern streetcar suburb where restaurants/coffeeshops/grocery stores/parks/bars are also a pleasant walk away.

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

#343

Post by alimov »

trap_goes_hot wrote: post #290
osigurdson wrote: post #122

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.,…

>Surely, all of this could only be justified if physical presence had a dramatic impact on productivity. Yet, we cannot tell one way or the other if it actually improves outcomes. You can flip that around too - If remote work was so great for productivity, all companies would switch to it? There really isn't any point arguing over it, because it doesn't change the current state of affairs. My belief is that for remot…

> You can flip that around too - If remote work was so great for productivity, all companies would switch to it?

When you’re flipping this pancake please remember that real estate prices and tax write offs weigh into the reasoning some companies employ when deciding their wfh policies

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

#344

Post by itsoktocry »

trap_goes_hot wrote: post #290
osigurdson wrote: post #122

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.,…

>Surely, all of this could only be justified if physical presence had a dramatic impact on productivity. Yet, we cannot tell one way or the other if it actually improves outcomes. You can flip that around too - If remote work was so great for productivity, all companies would switch to it? There really isn't any point arguing over it, because it doesn't change the current state of affairs. My belief is that for remot…

>If remote work was so great for productivity, all companies would switch to it?

My belief is that a lot of the people who get to make these decision like the office, because they don't suffer from the same externalities. In other words, many of the things that make commuting to the office suck ass don't necessarily pertain to the boss.

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

#345

Post by maerF0x0 »

MarcoSanto wrote: post #230
ibejoeb wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> This. FFS....

Not this FFS.

Who says remote work means you have to stay home all the time? Stay home to work and make sure you leave at least once, ideally two or three times a day!

In the morning for a walk or workout or coffee break.

At lunch just to breath some air.

At 5PM[1] sharp laptops closed to reconnect with some of your favorite humans, not necessarily the same ones you live with.

[1]: or whatever hard stop you craft for yourself.

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

#346

Post by mooxie »

elijaht wrote: post #154
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The average commute in a large city is definitely not 2-3 hours one way .

Maybe not the average, but millions of people commute to a city like Atlanta every day. From the middle of Forsyth County in GA, where there are many exurbs of Atlanta that feed workers into the city, the drive is slated to be 1-2 hours over 44 miles to downtown as we speak even now. And nothing is 'wrong,' currently - this is not some outlier.

Many people that I know make this kind of drive in the Atlanta area, and that's not due to them all being in particular industries either. 1-2 hours to get across the city and into the suburbs/exurbs is a fact of life, and millions do it.

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

#347

Post by akira2501 »

osigurdson wrote: post #122

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 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.

It's not patently absurd, it obviously bring some benefit to their life to chose this, you're just ignoring those benefits to focus solely on the time and energy costs; which people gladly trade away in order to achieve these other benefits.

> The impacts on the environment, the number of hours of human life wasted in commute, the pointless buildings and associated costs to employers as well as the public infrastructure to support it (roads, trains, busses, etc.) are all incredibly wasteful.

This view is solely focused on the "information economy," and really doesn't make any sense once you start adding in light commercial or industrial activity. We built this infrastructure for a reason, and it wasn't solely to create a trap for white collar workers.

> Yet, we cannot tell one way or the other if it actually improves outcomes.

This is probably because most people do not view their lives as part of some giant "min-max" game designed to provide maximum benefit to everyone other than themselves.

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

#348

Post by osigurdson »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #300
osigurdson wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to this data, commutes are pretty much no big deal in all states. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/...

I'm always amazed at these datasets. They tend to ignore things like the laws of physics. When you live 40 miles away from your destination, there's no way that you'll get there in 37.7 minutes, unless you can do over the state speed limit, the entire time. And that doesn't even count things like congestion, traffic lights, and whatnot. Frankly, I'm kind of amazed at the nasty reception that my post got. I do apologi…

Yes, I'd like to see how this data was aggregated. It doesn't seem to resonate very well.

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

#350

Post by akira2501 »

lizknope wrote: post #136

We used to spend $400 a month on gasoline because we both commuted 25 minutes each way. During the pandemic that was down to about $100 a month. And when we did have to go somewhere the traffic was so much lower so less wasting gas in stop and go traffic. I'm supposed to go in 3 days a week. In reality I go in once a week for a few hours and no one cares as 90% of the people on my project are in other offices. I told…

So.. if we gave you your office back and ripped out all the cubicles, maybe even had a nice view, would you be happy spending the $400 again? I'm honestly curious where you think the value/cost split is in this equation for you.
Post reply on HN