Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Why don't I see gold at the end of the remote working rainbow?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

671–680 of 830 posts

Re: Ask HN: Why don't I see gold at the end of the remote working rainbow?

#671

Post by watwut »

subradios wrote: post #376
watwut wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then there are people who work mainly to get paid and do not care to invest themselves beyond what is necessary. And then are people who are fully invested, but also aware that a lot of time in office is spend on ... other people trying to get socialization. Cause they don't build relationships outside of work, but still need to talk to people, so they drag meetings and discussions forever. And that is not being in…

The unfortunate fact is that at least in the US, even if you live in a "walkable", "transit oriented" city, there is no way to run a business that's community oriented. Which means that the only actual community available is your work community. How are you supposed to "build relationships outside of work" in that environment? I get that your opinion of this is that it's degenerate, and this may be true - but have so…

> there is no way to run a business that's community oriented. Which means that the only actual community available is your work community.

Actual community does not requires a business. Building relationships does not require business either.

I did not said it is degenerate. But it is dishonest when what I described is framed as somehow being more performing, because of spending more time in workplace slowing down effectivity of it. Also, It is possible to create relationships in workplace and then keep those as you move to other workplaces - assuming people are willing to socialize outside of workplace. It is possible for communities to form around blocks, parks or hobbies.

Re: Ask HN: Why don't I see gold at the end of the remote working rainbow?

#672

Post by [deleted] »

baud147258 wrote: post #515
bodge5000 wrote: post #118

With all due respect, this is mostly my problem with the "work-from-office" (WFO for ease) crowd. Generally, the stance of the WFH crowd is that each individual should get a choice of what makes that individual happy. Very few, if any, of the WFH crowd want mandatated WFH, it would make no sense. But then the WFO crowd often says no, I don't care what makes you happy, because you being in makes me happy. That doesn't…

As part of the WFO crowd (I mean I live 10 min away from the office, it wasn't a hard choice to make), I'm happy to have colleagues around in the office, that's the whole point of the place. But I've never said that those part of the WFH group have to come too! Especially those who've moved 300 km away during the Covid. And yes, you're coming as agressive, sorry.

[deleted]

Re: Ask HN: Why don't I see gold at the end of the remote working rainbow?

#673

Post by tdeck »

kotlin2 wrote: post #237
bodge5000 wrote: post #118

With all due respect, this is mostly my problem with the "work-from-office" (WFO for ease) crowd. Generally, the stance of the WFH crowd is that each individual should get a choice of what makes that individual happy. Very few, if any, of the WFH crowd want mandatated WFH, it would make no sense. But then the WFO crowd often says no, I don't care what makes you happy, because you being in makes me happy. That doesn't…

WFO isn't necessarily about personal preference. People who want everyone to WFO believe that WFO produces better outcomes for the company. That is different than someone who desires to work from an office or remotely out of personal preference. For instance, I may prefer to WFH because it makes my life more convenient, but I can also accept that WFO produces better outcomes for the company. Personally, I haven't see…

First off, let's get this quote out of the way:

> The closest work-related argument I've heard is that some people work better when they're free of distractions at the office. That takes us back to companies being collaborative human endeavors. One may feel they work better in isolation, but part of ones job is to interact with others, even if that's not fun.

This just feels like motivated reasoning to me. Here's how I read it "I've NEVER SEEN an argument for why WFH is better... Well, some people did say they're more focused and productive when working from home, but they're probably just doing a poor job of communication so that outweighs any of their perceived productivity gains." How can we falsify this rebuttal? I certainly have enough data to show that I've had much greater and more consistent engagement with my work since transitioning to work from home, and I have plenty of 1:1s and meetings with the rest of my team to stay connected and work through problems. Our team has shipped successful products entirely working from home. But that argument runs up against a brick wall if you're predisposed to assume that whatever job I'm doing at home, I'd be more effective in the office.

Personally I haven't seen much evidence for the proposition that WFO produces better outcomes. Most of the arguments seem to be from first principles, like the communication argument you're making or the argument that companies would have already gone WFH if it were better for the bottom line.

The problem with the work outcomes conversation is that our industry has 1) no reliable way of measuring work output and thus 2) no reliable way of measuring productivity. This is why despite decades of research we have no good way to estimate when projects will be done, for example. Each organization is unique. Each project is unique. Comparing across them is questionable. That means conversations that are ostensibly about what makes a business productive are really just a dressed up proxy for our own values.

Re: Ask HN: Why don't I see gold at the end of the remote working rainbow?

#674

Post by tdeck »

triknomeister wrote: post #445
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The closest work-related argument I've heard is that some people work better when they're free of distractions at the office. That takes us back to companies being collaborative human endeavors. One may feel they work better in isolation, but part of ones job is to interact with others, even if that's not fun. Have you worked in an open office or cubical farm? My hearing the sales guys isn't 'collaboration', it's d…

In my company, we have observed that work from home has increased productivity in short term. But true collaborations have actually decreased. Often, in office, you would have coffee breaks/lunch with people from different departments, or talk with someone from other departments for may be 5 minutes. And we have noticed that these kind of low-cost interactions are greatly decreased during Work From Home as much becau…

> Often, in office, you would have coffee breaks/lunch with people from different departments

That wasn't my experience working in the office. Unless you were a manager or PM (someone whose job it was to facilitate cross-team communications), most people tended to just have lunch and coffee with either their own team or their personal friends. All of my experience has been at companies with over 1k employees though, I imagine at a smaller shop there's a bit more closeness.

Re: Ask HN: Why don't I see gold at the end of the remote working rainbow?

#675

Post by jgilias »

ben7799 wrote: post #637
joshstrange wrote: post #414

> And finally, I feel no one else is realizing that they are happily hacking away at the amazingly well-paid branch they're sitting on. As soon as a company's IT department is practically fully remote, why should they page a German wage for someone who is a face on a screen, when they can pay a fraction for that same face broadcasted from a few hundred kilometers further east or south? German is hardly used in busine…

People who think this isn't happening aren't getting "how" it's happening. BigAnnoyingCo isn't going to lay your whole team off and hire an entire new team in Elbonia. They're going to not replace "B" or "C" players when they leave, or lay off 1 or 2 people here or there. And they are going to hire 1, 2, 3 "A" Players that happen to live in Elbonia along the way. Pretty soon your team is completely geographically dis…

Yeah, but the thing is that “A” players command “A” level salaries, be it Elbonia or not. Because a company that doesn’t have a clear, understandable, and fair salary policy is a major red flag that “A” players won’t work at. Sure, there may be some discount due to lower living expenses in Elbonia, but it would also apply to Richland people willing to move to sunny Mayland, and it won’t be a multiple.

Re: Ask HN: Why don't I see gold at the end of the remote working rainbow?

#676

Post by tdeck »

LawTalkingGuy wrote: post #656
scrumbledober wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but where is the connection between investing yourself into your job and going in to the office? That assumes that you can't work hard from home, which I don't believe to be true.

> That assumes that you can't work hard from home, which I don't believe to be true. Where's the analysis of the job to see if it can really be performed ideally remotely. Also, "hard" is a straw man. As a boss I want output not effort and part of being near coworkers is to avoid getting stuck and wasting resources. > where is the connection between investing yourself into your job and going in to the office If I was…

> Where's the analysis of the job to see if it can really be performed ideally remotely.

Where's the analysis that says it can't? If you want my ass in the office, shouldn't the burden of proof be on you?

Re: Ask HN: Why don't I see gold at the end of the remote working rainbow?

#677

Post by ballenf »

Does anyone oppose just allowing companies to choose whatever WFO/WFH/hybrid policy they want? If they have a WFO policy and can't recruit, then they adjust or die.

Just seems reasonable that the industry, location, talent pool and local infrastructure are all factors that make it impossible to generalize.

Re: Ask HN: Why don't I see gold at the end of the remote working rainbow?

#678

Post by [deleted] »

hluska wrote: post #313
vaidhy wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are reading three different reasons and you are mentally adding “do not care to invest” to all three. That is not what the OP said.

Here’s a direct quote: Then there are people who work mainly to get paid and do not care to invest themselves beyond what is necessary . (I added the italics for emphasis.)

[deleted]

Re: Ask HN: Why don't I see gold at the end of the remote working rainbow?

#679

Post by bodge5000 »

unethical_ban wrote: post #487
bodge5000 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Work is a third of our life, and it seems reasonable that many people would want social interaction during that time Yeh thats reasonable enough. I do miss the social aspects of working in an office, I just don't miss the logistics of it like the commute, or the cost, the social pressures or the lack of freedom. As you say work is a third of our life, it seems reasonable that people wouldn't want it to be any more…

What I mean by "WFH is not an individual choice" is that in the post-COVID jargon, WFH is a company policy. And when people advocate for WFH in this environment, they are implicitly advocating for no one to be in the office - because me being alone in an office park because everyone else is at home does nothing for my ability to collaborate or have a positive work experience. As someone else stated, I think the end r…

> What I mean by "WFH is not an individual choice" is that in the post-COVID jargon, WFH is a company policy.

Ah, apologies, that makes much more sense, though it is of course an individuals choice as to whether you will work somewhere that allows WFH or not (all factors considered, of course).

> As someone else stated, I think the end result will be different companies choosing how they want to have their workforce operate, and workers deciding whether to work for a WFH or WFO company.

This seems to be a fair solution, though I don't think we're there yet. If a big tech company decided to declare itself as entirely WHX, you'd get a wave of people resigning (because it doesn't match their preference, so they're going somewhere that does), which would restart the whole fight over it, which is why a lot of companies are still in this middle ground of not doing anything yet. But after that initial wave you'd hope it'd get a lot more smooth, and it'd just be treated as any other job preference thing.

> I do think some are saying WFH is morally superior

I haven't seen this myself, but as another commenter pointed out there are of course bound to be a load of subcultures on both sides. I'm sure there are some that say WFO is morally superior. But I don't think the majority of either group are saying that.

Re: Ask HN: Why don't I see gold at the end of the remote working rainbow?

#680

Post by WorldMaker »

hhmc wrote: post #577
yupper32 wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> prefer to socialize in other settings Can someone shed some light on this? I'm in the office for at least 40 hours a week. Then each day I get home, cook dinner, clean, bathe, workout sometimes. I don't even have kids or a long commute. If I'm not socializing at work, when am I doing it? Two days a week? That is bleeeeaak .

40hours a week is 8 hours a day. Let's say you sleep 8 hours. Let's also be conservative and say you have a 1 hour commute each way. That's still 6 hours left. It's pretty easy to find some socialization time in there unless you're taking 4 hour long showers. This isn't just theoretical, _clearly_ many people socialize in the evenings.

That's assuming that you don't have to pop all of your spell slots to get through the 8 hour work day. The 8 hour work day was chosen pretty precisely to be exactly exhausting enough in a menial labor factory assembly job that you return home with very little energy for anything else. If you presume your job is more (creatively, socially) taxing than "repeatedly doing the same task in an assembly" line, it's very easy to assume most jobs today are more exhausting in 8 hour shifts than what that work week was first established for.

You may have 6 hours of time left, but that doesn't mean you have 6 hours of energy reserves left to socialize or otherwise. (Clearly many people spend their evenings in low effort activities like watching TV on weeknights, too.)

Post reply on HN