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

461–470 of 508 posts

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

#461

Post by jokethrowaway »

eastbound wrote: post #450
waboremo wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to recognise the CEO of most companies.

Facebook's one just turned into a meme because of how unlikeable he is

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

#463

Post by osigurdson »

throwaway675309 wrote: post #432
akira2501 wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

"It's not patently absurd, it obviously bring some benefit to their life to chose this" For the vast majority of people in the last four decades working out of an office was not a decision up to the employees so I don't know where this is coming from.

I think it is more out of habit than anything else. Office work has always been information based but it wasn't possible to get the information (aka paper) out of the office easily. For this reason, people had to be brought to the information.

I don't think we would have many office buildings if information work and telecommuting would have started at exactly the same time. No serious business person would invest in something that is plainly unnecessary.

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

#464

Post by closeparen »

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.

Is it wasted? Thirty minutes is honestly pretty fast for a transition as momentous as getting into or out of the workday.

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

#465

Post by renewedrebecca »

osigurdson wrote: post #152
bilbo0s wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. We need to learn that corporations care even less about the environment than they care about remote work. Invoking the environment to gain their support of remote work is just misunderstanding their priorities. The game is to make remote work attractive to them. You think Elon Musk wants to hear your spiel about the environment? Or does he want you to get back into your office and work a 16 hour day? If we want…

>> Or does he want you to get back into your office and work a 16 hour day? I'm OK with working 16 hour days on something that matters (obviously burn out needs to be kept in check - it can't be done forever). I realize that I might be "wired" differently than others as I care a bit less about work life balance and more about accomplishment (not proud of it). I see no reason why this can't be done at the beach house…

Unless we’re talking about finding a cure for cancer, there isn’t anything that matters enough to work 16 hour days.

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

#466

Post by paulcole »

seydor wrote: post #191
paulcole wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do companies care about more? Their ESG image or money? The employees don’t need to be advertised remote work software. They either like remote work or they don’t. An ad for “Slack is good for the environment” doesn’t change anyone’s mind.

By the same token "EVs are good for the environment" wouldn't change anyone's mind

That doesn’t make any sense.

The “EVs are good for the environment” ads are for the consumers, many of whom haven’t made their minds up about which car to buy next. People have made their minds up about whether they like remote work or not — see every HN thread ever.

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

#467

Post by paulcole »

xkcd-sucks wrote: post #313
paulcole wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do companies care about more? Their ESG image or money? The employees don’t need to be advertised remote work software. They either like remote work or they don’t. An ad for “Slack is good for the environment” doesn’t change anyone’s mind.

There was a big "Slack is where work happens" campaign, on billboards and expensive full page newspaper ads etc. By the same token that would also seem to have little purpose. Maybe these kinds of ads are made as memes to be repeated uncritically by decision makers with little specific expertise, or something like that

> By the same token that would also seem to have little purpose.

No. It’s brand advertising which has a pretty specific purpose.

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

#468

Post by Melatonic »

I have actually heard it talked about a lot as a pro environment thing - just much earlier in the pandemic. I have not seen huge advertising about it but that does not mean it is not highly talked about.

That being said you are totally right that Zoom should be advertising the crap out of this - Microsoft may have incentivize NOT to do this (if they want their own employees in the office) but for Zoom it seems like a no brainer.

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

#469

Post by [deleted] »

theshrike79 wrote: post #366
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...

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN