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

441–450 of 508 posts

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

#441

Post by mod »

bonniemuffin wrote: post #181
mod wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My full size 2015 GMC truck gets 22mpg on the highway. 18-19 around town.

That seems like an unfortunate choice of vehicle to commute many hours per week alone in, unless maybe you work in construction and need to haul things to the site (in which case spending more on transportation seems worthwhile as a core part of the job function.)

I would agree, however that's not my use case. I don't leave my property except about once per week. I do plenty of "truck stuff" without being in construction, though. I don't think you've hit all the use cases with "work in construction."

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

#442

Post by Jenk »

more_corn wrote: post #429
Jenk wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Imagine the world’s tiniest violin playing a sad song for the billionaire who alienated himself from the world. Someone living in one of his many houses when he’s not around! Scandalous! How about have one house and live in it. You can have money and not be an asshole about things. Warren buffet was once targeted by an armed gunman. The gunman burst into buffet’s kitchen where buffet, his wife (I suppose she’s also b…

Evidently you missed the entirety of the post where I have said my family member is Bob's confidant and intimate friend. And the example of his close, childhood friend betraying his trust. And you just said it yourself.. a literal gunman broke into the kitchen of the Buffet's residence whilst they were eating lunch, but it's the wealthy individual's fault for not trusting enough!?

Did you get lost on the way to reddit, or something?

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

#443

Post by pastacacioepepe »

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?

It's not just about gains in productivity (profit/surplus value) for companies*. It would be enough for remote work to be a net benefit for the whole society. Take the reduction in car traffic, the time savings, the pollution avoided, etc, and subtract an hypotetical loss in profit for capitalists. Still worth it? Then we're doing it!

> My belief is that for remote work to gain mainstream adoption, you'll need a few trailblazer companies who establish a model of remote work

Sure, but we can't wait for a handful of capitalists to take the lead on this. If it's important and necessary, governments should act and enforce it. The same way as we did for work safety rules, the 40h work week, the abolition of child labor and so on.

All of the labor rights we now give for granted, when enforced caused a reduction in the productivity of labor. Still, nowadays it would sound insane to advocate for a return to child labor in order to increase profits.

* Companies are abstract concepts without a will, so we can't really expect a company to take decisions. What we really mean here is capitalists. Capitalists are people, they have a will and the decisional power required to change things. We'll just refer to them as capitalists from now on.

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

#444

Post by rory »

shtopointo wrote: post #436
leipert wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, on a personal level this can be tricky to calculate and it is highly individualistic. Example for Heating A German price comparison site has done the calculation and for their model – 20m² home office and a yearly usage of ~2000 litres heating oil for the whole apartment) – you would end up with ~4% higher usage [0]. That means that you have 80 litres more heating oil which is equivalent to roughly 80 days of c…

Interesting info -- but I was mostly referring to the gas / oil consumed to heat up the office for 100 people vs. heat up 100 individual residences.

The savings from turning household heat down during the day aren't trivial, but they aren't very large either. You can keep your heat ~10-20°F lower during the day when you're not home and save energy, but then additional energy is needed later in the day to get the temperature back up. Typical estimates are that this lowers gas or oil consumption by 10-15%, and only in the colder months. Certainly dwarfed by energy spent commuting, on average.

Your comment on the second+ order effects is much more interesting, but also much more uncertain.

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

#445

Post by Symbiote »

xboxnolifes wrote: post #394
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...

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.

Depending on how you make the journey, it isn't necessarily wasted.

For about a year I commuted around 30 minutes by train, from a station It was a good transition between work and not-work. Driving requires too much concentration, cycling is somewhere in between, and working from home doesn't have any of this.

Every few months, generally if I feel I've been really unproductive, I'll walk home from the office (~50 minutes) just to enjoy the walk.

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

#446

Post by extragood »

layer8 wrote: post #363
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.

In the same boat. 15 minute walk to work. I miss having coworkers around, but I also understand that their commutes are much worse in many cases. I still prefer the office, even without the coworkers, because I don't want to turn my home into my office.

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

#447

Post by orangepurple »

Aldipower wrote: post #426
orangepurple wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to heat your house or apartment anyway or your pipes will burst

No, they won't. Not sure were you are living? :)

Somewhere where it gets below freezing outside in the winter time

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

#448

Post by nickkell »

TheRealPomax wrote: post #291

"No form of transport requires less energy than telecommuting" is quite the statement. If your work force bikes or walks to work, pretty sure that has far lower energy requirements than having all of them telecommute.

Depends what the workers are eating to fuel themselves!

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

#449

Post by midasuni »

Jenk wrote: post #216
toomuchtodo wrote: post #158

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…

If you are a billionaire you can choose to become a boring old millionaire with $5m net worth, and not have those problems, so the additional benefits must be worthwhile.

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

#450

Post by eastbound »

waboremo wrote: post #356
andrei_says_ wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 - w…

This level of fame paranoia is commonly talked about, but is also extremely hard to reach without actually trying and spending resources in regularly keeping your name in people's mouths. You can achieve a great level of wealth without anybody caring: see extremely wealthy families in most countries who 99% of people won't even recognize even if you show them a picture with their name under.

This phenomenon is extremely interesting. I other words, the billionaires we know of may be almost drama queens, who might (might!) have paid marketing agencies to capitalize on their personal name and image. They fell into the LinkedIn trap, which is certainly a side effect of having to climb the social ladder yourself. You could be Facebook’s anonymous CEO if you had attracted attention on the board’s characters instead of yourself, but you would have dissolved your power; Unless, of course, your family were already in the business and you had been able to rise collectively.
Post reply on HN