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

391–400 of 508 posts

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

#391

Post by guywithahat »

Eric_WVGG wrote: post #88

The majority of advertising on environmental initiatives ("hey go out there and recycle" and that kind of crap) is funded by polluters to shift the conversation from a manufacturer problem to a consumer problem. You need to ask "who is advertising" and "who is the market." So let's say Zoom wanted to run an initiative like this… the market wouldn't be workers, it's be the bosses. So already you're talking about a tin…

> is funded by polluters

If only those polluters would stop pointlessly polluting! Gee I mean why would they even do it? It's almost as if you're paying them to pollute for you so you can have that new laptop and fast shipping!

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

#392

Post by deckard1 »

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…

> It's tough spending all day, every day with someone

You literally do this with coworkers in an office. Except, you didn't get to pick those people and you have to be even physically closer to them. The last office I worked in was an open floor plan and the guy three feet next to me typed so hard I thought he would break his keyboard. And he was on a rubber dome!! It was louder than the loudest mechanical keyboard. Before that I sat next to the sales department. They would talk loudly on the phone for 8 straight hours. One time my desk was next to the break room. You like hearing people talk all day long?

> in order to have private work spaces

With open floor plans the only privacy you get is when you put on your headphones. Anyone walking by still sees your screen and wearing headphones all day is not great for your health.

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

#393

Post by guywithahat »

hotpotamus wrote: post #72
exabrial wrote: post #58

Probably because people get significantly less work done remotely… CEOs know this, multiple studies have shown this, and it’s been a lot of people’s experience as well.

I feel like some sources might be in order. And I say that as a person who despises working from home.

I can't help but think you may not despise working from home, the only people who dispute wfh is less efficient are people who want to wfh or people selling article clicks to them

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

#394

Post by xboxnolifes »

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...

I love when people point out wrong info just so someone can make a stronger claim that is essentially the same point. 1 hour a day wasted is still a lot of time.

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

#395

Post by elgenie »

zhengyi13 wrote: post #280
closeparen wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

... Maybe? This might be a case where an average doesn't tell the whole story. 45-minute to hour-long commutes each way have been the norm for me pretty much the entirety of my 20-odd year career in Silicon Valley. For me the outliers were the folk who opted to live 2+hrs away to afford a single family home, and were still commuting in - some did it daily; some did it weekly, and couch surfed during the week. (The ot…

2 hour round trip * 5 days/week * 48 working weeks/year * 20 years = 9,600 hours commuting. Assuming 16 hours awake per day, that's 600 days of your life over two decades.

One might observe that if that's not an outlier, it ought to be.

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

#396

Post by kompatible »

neutronicus wrote: post #95
simonmesmith wrote: post #7

Similarly, I often wonder why cities don’t promote local telecommuting over building expensive public transportation infrastructure. Building one kilometre of subway costs anywhere from around $100 million to $1.6 billion ( https://marroninstitute.nyu.edu/events/how-much-does-it-cost... ), and then requires subsidies to run. Why not use this money to provide incentives for people to telecommute? And while some might…

Well, my city at least (Baltimore) has kind of evolved to "a place where hospitals are", and there's only so much health care you can do over Zoom

And at least Moore is planning to work with Scott in order to expand the public transit footprint Baltimore has (such as more than one light rail/metro line each and more BRT)

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

#397

Post by xboxnolifes »

nicbou wrote: post #22
lm28469 wrote: post #6

I'm not convinced it is a net positive in the end. Especially for big companies, heating an office space with 500+ people is probably much more efficient than heating 500 individual houses for example Not everyone commute with an ICE vehicle too

A house used 100% of the time is more efficient than a house used 50% of the time + an office used 50% of the time.

But it's not a house used 100% of the time vs an office used 50% of the time.

It's 100 houses used 50% of the time and 1 office used 50% of the time vs 100 houses used 100% of the time.

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

#398

Post by AntiRemoteWork »

smaudet wrote: post #52
luminouslow wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about you but we still use the internet/zoom etc. in the office so you still need datacenters >lack of commuting incentivizes un-environmental and inefficient suburban sprawl I dont understand this point, IMO commuting leads to more suburban sprawl? Also i think this is a very USA-centric problem.

This may not be universally true, but voice-only makes a difference, too. Audio is very low bandwidth, but for work it is usually more than adequate. Screenshare, where important, is mostly just a matter of providing small diffs over time, it's usually much cheaper both to encode/decode than normal video streaming. You can also run it point to point in smaller calls, which means fewer hops and datacenters (more route…

No post body was provided.

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

#399

Post by richardknop »

b3morales wrote: post #263
Spivak wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The restaurants are there and successful because of the density, though. The falafel shop around the corner from three multi-storey office buildings can't afford to have a location in every suburb that formerly sent workers to the business district. There's existing evidence for this: how many restaurants do you see in standalone office parks? A few perhaps, but nothing like what's downtown.

So more small businesses by people living in the area would be encouraged (think small mom-and-pop shops) rather than multinational chain restaurants. It’s a good thing.

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

#400

Post by ibejoeb »

deckard1 wrote: post #392
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…

> It's tough spending all day, every day with someone You literally do this with coworkers in an office. Except, you didn't get to pick those people and you have to be even physically closer to them. The last office I worked in was an open floor plan and the guy three feet next to me typed so hard I thought he would break his keyboard. And he was on a rubber dome!! It was louder than the loudest mechanical keyboard.…

Most people do not live around the clock in an office. Many people spend entire days at their homes because there is nowhere else to go.

None of this goes to suggest that the bad aspects of offices are better.

Post reply on HN