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

361–370 of 508 posts

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

#361

Post by PeterisP »

blahblah1234567 wrote: post #268
lotsofpulp wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Maids, servers, and other staff are stealing things all the time - Bob maintains and reviews an inventory of stolen property with his security detail, with monthly targets... theft of his belongings is an ever present cost to Bob. I can solve this problem for Bob. Live a more modest life and not have 10 homes with a million things in them. Maybe stick to first class flights, or even charter private flights when desi…

Yep. I'd say the solution is: Live a modest life, and don't advertise your wealth. I doubt there is any law anywhere prohibiting a millionaire or billionaire from moving themselves and their families to a new place and living a middle class lifestyle under a new name. Advertising one's wealth is a signal for "I seek validation" and "Please appreciate me"/"Be my friend because I am wealthy" I doubt anyone is actually…

For starters, the security issue won't go away by moving to a new place and living a middle class lifestyle under a new name, so they still would need to maintain that security staff which would make them obviously not middle class.

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

#362

Post by Karrot_Kream »

twobitshifter wrote: post #326
agentultra wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the land use is that much more productive. High density cities pay for suburbs which are a net-drain on city finances and are terrible for the environment. The numbers in North America are pretty staggering. There are plenty of examples around the world where dense urban living can be rather pleasant. You can walk to get your food, kids can cycle around town, and you can sit and gather in public places that a…

US cities don’t do well without the suburbs, it’s a symbiotic relationship, you can’t separate the suburb cost from cities, suburban residents go to the cities to work where they register their economic value.

It absolutely is not, it's a parasitic relationship. Enough suburbs are aware of this dynamic that their local leadership tries really hard to annex their suburb into the city so that suburbanites can vote to change policies in the urban area. Suburbs strong arming cities into annexation is a common theme in the US and Canada.

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

#363

Post by layer8 »

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.,…

In most cases, yes, but for me it’s a 20-minute bike ride that arguably increases my health, and it enables face-to-face conversation with coworkers that video meetings aren’t a real substitute for — I say that after two years of having those. I wouldn’t want to miss that.

What we, as a society, should do, is to increase the possibility of working in walking or biking distance.

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

#364

Post by 8note »

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.

The incentive for living in a dense environment is that you get to use common infrastructure for power, water, sewage, health care etc, rather than running your own septic tank and so on.

Even suburbia isn't dense enough to support those things

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

#365

Post by Aldipower »

Because it isn't necessarily pro env, at least not everywhere. This has to be subject of larger studies I guess. Some thoughts. 1. If I WFH I need to heat/cool my apartment/house my self. This is much more inefficient than heat office spaces, if you take the people inside an filled office space into account. 2. The public transport is going and consuming energy anyways. 3. Zoom, Teams, etc is consuming a lot of energy due to servers and videostreaming. 4. Walking a little bit does not harm yourself and maybe saves medical treatment, which in itself harms the environment.

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

#366

Post by theshrike79 »

closeparen wrote: post #198
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.,…

New York has one of the worst commute situations in the country, with an average of 36 minutes each way. The US average is 27 minutes. People commuting two hours a day are extreme outliers. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/22/realestate/commuting-best...

That 27 minutes of commute is most likely calculated from door to door.

It doesn't include the fact that when you're working remotely, you can just plop your ass on the work chair wearing whatever you slept in. Log in, check your messages and go make some coffee, prep the kids for school and maybe change into something smarter before the first meetings of the day.

You can also do chores while listening to meandering presentations on wireless headphones. If you're brave and cameras on isn't a culture in your company, you can do interactive ones by lugging your laptop or phone next to the dishwasher :D

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

#367

Post by periheli0n »

WFH is indeed advertised as pro environment. It just isn’t taking off very well for many.

Change is hard and re-thinking work as an entirely online activity requires a lot of change.

For some, their jobs which were fun before the pandemic now just suck because they don’t get to meet people face to face.

Some dread the long boring days WFH and spending time in back-to-back Zoom meetings where 90% of those attending have their camera off and do something else.

Some are frustrated because their coworkers are slacking off WFH. Others are frustrated because their productivity at home is a disaster.

But there is also a pro-environment factor of working in an office: In countries where buildings need heating, heating one office compound is more efficient than heating a hundred homes at the same time.

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

#368

Post by orangepurple »

Aldipower wrote: post #365

Because it isn't necessarily pro env, at least not everywhere. This has to be subject of larger studies I guess. Some thoughts. 1. If I WFH I need to heat/cool my apartment/house my self. This is much more inefficient than heat office spaces, if you take the people inside an filled office space into account. 2. The public transport is going and consuming energy anyways. 3. Zoom, Teams, etc is consuming a lot of energ…

You have to heat your house or apartment anyway or your pipes will burst
Post reply on HN