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

501–508 of 508 posts

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

#501

Post by sershe »

adamsmith143 wrote: post #499
sershe wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seattle is #18. At peak rush hour it is 30-40mins, the main reason being that it's across a giant bottleneck of a bridge that also has ongoing construction; driving to suburbs that are not directly across the bridge would be faster. But, I don't drive at rush hour. "Start an 1-1.5 hours later" is much easier to grant than "WFH" :)

So you aren't really comparing apples to apples. So what if I can drive downtown in under 30 minutes at 3:00 am?

1) There are statistics that show the same is true for most workers. Commutes are 20-40 minutes. Most of those for whom this is not true either have uncommon priorities and trade-offs, are poor, are actively planning to move, or are just stupid. The uncommon priorities are uncommon; low-paying jobs mostly cannot be done from home; the temporary location mismatch is temporary; and avoiding people who are not poor but cannot figure out their living situation seems like a good reason to not offer WFH :D

2) I provided a number for peak rush hour, worst possible commute (bridge + construction), that I've actually done a couple times. FWIW I can drive to downtown in 25 minutes during rush hour, 10-12 minutes without, and that also would involve a bridge so a bottleneck.

3) An hour after rush hour is very different than 3am.

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

#502

Post by sershe »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #495
sershe wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, statistically most of people don't live "out there". To live out there is a choice... like, I know people who live in a mountain town because hiking/climbing is walking distance, or people who live in the country cause they want to keep a horse for regular riding (I think that was the primary reason?). Sure, their commute sucks, but for most people the only reason I can think of for living that far out is not b…

> Well, statistically most of people don't live "out there". That depends. HN seems to be a whole bunch of folks that are actually against the idea of living "out here" (not "there," to me). I find that interesting. I'm sure some demographic research would suggest why that is. I can tell you, from simply stepping out of my front door, that there are a lot of people, "out here," and I suspect that most of them work, s…

I have no idea where you got the impression I had age in mind. Most people commute between suburbs and cities, and this commute data is averages (and broken down by state, too - some states don't have many hip cities) - not people taking a lime bike from apodment to office.

What hustle and bustle? Campuses of the likes of Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc. are surrounded by layers of suburbs, populated (purely due to prices, both current and over time, considering who could purchase when) by "experiences, accomplished folks". They probably live the closest to office and have the shortest commutes.

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

#503

Post by anikom15 »

oblio wrote: post #431
rickydroll wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is an incentive for somebody else who likes to tell other people how to live. Not for me. I bought a house in suburbia. My basement is filled with home lab, workshop (wood and 3D printing), indoor garden (wintertime leafy greens and starters for the spring), my partner's art studio in place to store telescopes. Our yard has rhubarb, asparagus, strawberries, blueberries, blackberries, apple trees. We are re-wildi…

You'll probably hate to hear this, but your lifestyle is most likely not sustainable, both environmentally and economically. If you live in the average suburb/town. It's ok, it's nice for you, but you're just passing the buck to future generations. And look at the discussions surrounding Boomers, who are blamed precisely for this.

That’s the whole point I’m making. If a lifestyle is unsustainable, then there needs to be an incentive to making it sustainable beyond that fact.

Being able to live close to work is an incentive for living densely.

But living densely isn’t sustainable either, and is arguably less sustainable, so the point is moot anyway. It’s just an example.

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

#504

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

sershe wrote: post #502
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, statistically most of people don't live "out there". That depends. HN seems to be a whole bunch of folks that are actually against the idea of living "out here" (not "there," to me). I find that interesting. I'm sure some demographic research would suggest why that is. I can tell you, from simply stepping out of my front door, that there are a lot of people, "out here," and I suspect that most of them work, s…

I have no idea where you got the impression I had age in mind. Most people commute between suburbs and cities, and this commute data is averages (and broken down by state, too - some states don't have many hip cities) - not people taking a lime bike from apodment to office. What hustle and bustle? Campuses of the likes of Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc. are surrounded by layers of suburbs, populated (purely due to pri…

Probably an East Coast/West Coast thing, then. We'll just leave it at that, eh?

I've lived on the East Coast for my entire adult life, and have experienced three metropolitan areas, and Not. One. Of. Them. had a 37-minute commute between an affordable suburb, and the center of the city.

Not. One.

I have managed to find jobs in the suburbs, which means they are probably not as high-paying as they could have been, in the city, but they worked out OK. Even then, I had ridiculous commutes (like 45 minutes to go 6 miles, in MD). My daily commute here, on Long Island, was 35 minutes to go 10 miles (for 27 years). That was from North Shore Long Island, to the center of the island. If I wanted to go to the city from here, it would have been at least 90 minutes, if I left at about 4AM (which many people around here do). 2-3 hours, in rush hour.

The thing about most companies on the East Coast, is they ain't real big on flexible hours. You need to travel during rush hour. The companies in the city can be a bit more flexible (I know of many people that work from 6AM-3PM), but the drive still sucks.

It's really weird to see people saying that this isn't happening, when it definitely is happening, and has been happening for decades, and I see it, every day. Miserable commutes have been a regular topic for discussion amongst my peers for as long as I can remember.

I have to assume there's some kind of cultural gulf. I definitely know that the tech industry is pretty sick with ageism, so that's a good bet. The people that live around me, are actually fairly well-off. The ones further East are likely to be lower on the food chain, and have much worse commutes.

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

#505

Post by wesapien »

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…

Less people are making offspring so no need to improve families. A dog or cat is a pet.

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

#506

Post by bojo »

oblio wrote: post #439
mikestew wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“You do enjoy it…just like alcoholics enjoy alcohol.” I mean, assuming I’m reading this correctly, seriously? Let people enjoy their choices, and without pulling questionable comparisons out of thin air. Especially when we aren’t given complete context, as with parent. Don’t take one sentence and then turn around and say, “doesn’t sound healthy”.

The entire zeitgeist is that people are more and more isolated and lack a support network. We can put 2 and 2 together and figure out that physical isolation in environment where people live far apart from each other and drive everywhere is... isolating? And by the way, there are studies that show that even for introverts, socialization (even forced!) is ultimately good. We're not made to sit alone in a room in the m…

> We're not made to sit alone in a room in the middle of nowhere.

You seem to be implying that people's social lives revolve around work. A lot of us prefer to spend that effort on family, friends, and community during the other 72 hours of the week we are free instead.

I'm 43. Doing things with coworkers isn't even remotely appealing as it was 20 years ago, because at the end of the day they are coworkers and not friends (usually).

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

#507

Post by akgerber »

anikom15 wrote: post #354
akgerber wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Midwestern environment doesn’t have high-density housing though. That’s what matters for conservation.

There is plenty of dense housing in prewar sections of Midwestern cities. Not as much as there used to be, unfortunately, but quite a bit, and available very affordably.

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

#508

Post by throwaway14356 »

foobiekr wrote: post #200
goosedragons wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah let's increase car dependence. Great idea. If people are mainly working from home then we can redirect public transit from business parks or whatever towards places people still want to go (e.g. shopping, nightlife, events) but without a car. Starving already often underfunded public transit is not the answer. Why not use the hundreds of millions spent on highways to subsidize people to work from home instead? M…

Subsidizing people in affluent, remote-work jobs is not a good allocation of resources. By all means, work from home, but subsidies should mostly help the people in the bottom two thirds of the income ladder.

nah, imho tax should go towards quality of life and stability. Working from home might not be good for promotions it will allow hiring competent people who cant [atm] afford living nearby. Dumb short term gigs gives one a chance to show ones performance.

I do manual labor but i could/should/might be a software developer. Not sure, im definitely not going to give up what i have to relocate. Give me work/tasks and we will see i havent got what it takes or do and if the pay and stability is there to give up what i have for it. They already cant find people. Reduce it further and salaries will have to change.

Post reply on HN