The social and economic costs borne by young people without offices • Hacker News Board

Re: The social and economic costs borne by young people without offices

#31

Post by benrbray » Fri, Sep 04, 2020, 9:06 PM UTC

frompdx wrote: post #21

benrbray wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Overall this feels like yet another hit piece against remote work...I really don't understand why these keep cropping up. Are commercial real-estate conglomerates paying for these? I appreciate the perspective you shared in the rest of your comment, but was this bit really necessary? Just because someone has had a different experience than you doesn't mean that they're a corporate shill paid to manufacture dissent.

I do think it is necessary. It's one thing to share your experience about remote work as the author does. It's something entirely different to interleave it with with vague concerns of economic hardship for younger people or stunted career growth for women. What is the purpose of this? In my mind I imagine a boardroom full of Don Draper types sipping scotch and smoking cigarettes fretting over the decline in office l…

Sure, if there's evidence that the author is not really who they say they are, by all means go ahead and point it out. However, you just seem to be making vague accusations about some grand conspiracy by corporate real estate developers, rather than addressing the article's very legitimate points.

As a young person working remotely, everything the author says reflects my own experience. It is very much a fact that remote work removes a lot of the unscheduled office interactions that younger / newer employees use to learn and advance their careers. I don't know about women specifically, but it is very plausible that remote work hurts social and economic mobility for young people, and for people without a stable home life.

Yes, we should certainly collect data to measure the real impact of remote work, good and bad. But now that remote work is a part of everyone's lives, whether we like it or not, it's also valuable to listen to these individual stories, to get an idea of the breadth of possible outcomes when we get rid of the office.

Re: The social and economic costs borne by young people without offices

#32

Post by pritovido » Fri, Sep 04, 2020, 9:11 PM UTC

As a long term worker from home I feel a sense of victimhood that floods all the article.

I understand that most people are working for a company so others tell her what to do after school when they also train you what to do and you are micromanaged all the time.

The article portrays that you need your boss to create your social circle for you.

People do not see that as the enormous opportunity that it is.

For example, before I worked remote I used to spend two hours every day commuting. I risked my life on the road with truck drivers and other carriers that were always late, stressed and dangerous. That also required my own money in gas and car repairs, expensive clothing...

Most people at the office were not my friends, they were coworkers, and because I spent so much time there I had no time for seeing my real friends and family. I was also exhausted all the time, because I did not sleep enough.

Working remote is amazing for me now(it was tough at first) and it could be for a lot of people is only they learn to grasp the opportunity.

Take control of your own life, you will have to go against the training of the school days that is pervasive, school took years of your live. It will take you years to undo this training. Make your own group of friends, lovers. Sleep and eat well. Exercise. Invest on your skills.

The article portrays young people as victims, and it is quite the opposite, they are the ones that can adapt and learn and grow.

I went to Russia and most old people had a hard time working in a capitalist society because they grew up in a State that did everything for them, so as young people they did not developed the skills to make things on their own. If you actually tried , you were strongly punished.

But young people are adaptable. When I was young and started working remotely very few people did, so I had to learn on the go. Today it is much better and easier.

Be proactive, refuse being a victim, if you have problems with working remote create a club, a mail list or whatever for other people in your same situation. Learn from people that have made it.

But don't be a victim. We will be having covid for at least 5 to 6 months more in the north Hemisphere. You can spend that time doing something about it, learning and improving your skills or just complain all the time.

After everything goes back to normal, most people will not do remote work 100%, but odds are they will do 30%, 40, or 50%, and their live will improve as a result if you have gotten the skills.

Re: The social and economic costs borne by young people without offices

#33

Post by WalterBright » Fri, Sep 04, 2020, 9:15 PM UTC

chadash wrote: post #8

supernova87a wrote: post #5

WFH has a huge difference in result depending on who you are, when you are (in your career), and where you are in a company (of organization). -- For the budding young developer who can't wait to show ideas to teammates and demonstrate being a go-getter by asking random questions and finding unaddressed issues to innovate on, WFH might be terrible. You're going to schedule time to fortuitously run into the senior per…

> And that's aside from the point that, when everyone is remote, you're also competing with the world who is also remote. Yup... once everyone is remote anyway, won't take too long for some manager to decide to offshore work to cheaper countries. Even if that doesn't happen to you, if it happens to enough people elsewhere it'll bring salaries down for everyone.

The D community is all over the world. We're used to that!

Re: The social and economic costs borne by young people without offices

#34

Post by fxtentacle » Fri, Sep 04, 2020, 9:27 PM UTC

frompdx wrote: post #21

benrbray wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Overall this feels like yet another hit piece against remote work...I really don't understand why these keep cropping up. Are commercial real-estate conglomerates paying for these? I appreciate the perspective you shared in the rest of your comment, but was this bit really necessary? Just because someone has had a different experience than you doesn't mean that they're a corporate shill paid to manufacture dissent.

I do think it is necessary. It's one thing to share your experience about remote work as the author does. It's something entirely different to interleave it with with vague concerns of economic hardship for younger people or stunted career growth for women. What is the purpose of this? In my mind I imagine a boardroom full of Don Draper types sipping scotch and smoking cigarettes fretting over the decline in office l…

For what it's worth, I also wondered if this was a reaction to tech companies going fully remote and canceling their office lease. Especially because we just had another article about how remote work is hurting small businesses 2 days ago, which started with the incredibly flawed assumption that people would stop going to local restaurants if they didn't accidentally walk past them on the way home from the office.

And yes, offices are big business. And yes, they'll surely try lobbying and PR.

Plus, the Atlantic has a history of "native advertising" https://www.adweek.com/digital/after-scientology-debacle-atl...

I'd give it a 50% chance that this das paid for by real estate and a 50% chance that the author just wants to virtue signal by mixing in these seemingly less related topics.

Re: The social and economic costs borne by young people without offices

#35

Post by sJ646U9k6c6gME9 » Fri, Sep 04, 2020, 9:32 PM UTC

chadash wrote: post #8

supernova87a wrote: post #5

WFH has a huge difference in result depending on who you are, when you are (in your career), and where you are in a company (of organization). -- For the budding young developer who can't wait to show ideas to teammates and demonstrate being a go-getter by asking random questions and finding unaddressed issues to innovate on, WFH might be terrible. You're going to schedule time to fortuitously run into the senior per…

> And that's aside from the point that, when everyone is remote, you're also competing with the world who is also remote. Yup... once everyone is remote anyway, won't take too long for some manager to decide to offshore work to cheaper countries. Even if that doesn't happen to you, if it happens to enough people elsewhere it'll bring salaries down for everyone.

Offshoring is not a new concept, and everyone knows it doesn’t work. How come offshoring hasn’t eaten my lunch yet?

Re: The social and economic costs borne by young people without offices

#36

Post by mumblemumble » Fri, Sep 04, 2020, 9:38 PM UTC

supernova87a wrote: post #5

WFH has a huge difference in result depending on who you are, when you are (in your career), and where you are in a company (of organization). -- For the budding young developer who can't wait to show ideas to teammates and demonstrate being a go-getter by asking random questions and finding unaddressed issues to innovate on, WFH might be terrible. You're going to schedule time to fortuitously run into the senior per…

> -- For the working parent whose productivity has been slashed by 50% and stress has gone up by 50%

Only up by 50%? That's impressive.

Re: The social and economic costs borne by young people without offices

#37

Post by bobthepanda » Fri, Sep 04, 2020, 9:42 PM UTC

fxtentacle wrote: post #34

frompdx wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do think it is necessary. It's one thing to share your experience about remote work as the author does. It's something entirely different to interleave it with with vague concerns of economic hardship for younger people or stunted career growth for women. What is the purpose of this? In my mind I imagine a boardroom full of Don Draper types sipping scotch and smoking cigarettes fretting over the decline in office l…

For what it's worth, I also wondered if this was a reaction to tech companies going fully remote and canceling their office lease. Especially because we just had another article about how remote work is hurting small businesses 2 days ago, which started with the incredibly flawed assumption that people would stop going to local restaurants if they didn't accidentally walk past them on the way home from the office. An…

I mean, small businesses will be getting tanked, but mostly in office districts with very high lunch foot traffic; the assumption of the increased lunch custom is kind of baked into rents and the business model, and commercial leases are measured in years.

Re: The social and economic costs borne by young people without offices

#38

Post by ericmcer » Fri, Sep 04, 2020, 9:51 PM UTC

supernova87a wrote: post #5

WFH has a huge difference in result depending on who you are, when you are (in your career), and where you are in a company (of organization). -- For the budding young developer who can't wait to show ideas to teammates and demonstrate being a go-getter by asking random questions and finding unaddressed issues to innovate on, WFH might be terrible. You're going to schedule time to fortuitously run into the senior per…

I try to fight my primal instincts of jealousy, etc. but it really feels like a lot of the 'butts in chairs' type people like human resources, various managers, etc. have slowly cut back to basically responding to emails/messages and maybe working a few hours a week. If that is your definition of WFH being great than it is definitely going great for them.

As a dev it has kinda shredded my desire to do large scale unpredictable projects and made me pick up predictable boilerplate type work. One is easy to demonstrate progress on, the other is more abstract. This is also slowly eroding my passion for engineering so I may need a rebalancing.

Re: The social and economic costs borne by young people without offices

#39

Post by frompdx » Fri, Sep 04, 2020, 9:53 PM UTC

fxtentacle wrote: post #34

frompdx wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do think it is necessary. It's one thing to share your experience about remote work as the author does. It's something entirely different to interleave it with with vague concerns of economic hardship for younger people or stunted career growth for women. What is the purpose of this? In my mind I imagine a boardroom full of Don Draper types sipping scotch and smoking cigarettes fretting over the decline in office l…

For what it's worth, I also wondered if this was a reaction to tech companies going fully remote and canceling their office lease. Especially because we just had another article about how remote work is hurting small businesses 2 days ago, which started with the incredibly flawed assumption that people would stop going to local restaurants if they didn't accidentally walk past them on the way home from the office. An…

In this case I suppose I'll give The Atlantic the benefit of the doubt because they do clearly spell out their advertising and paid content guidelines in this document (pdf warning). http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/front/docs/ads/TheAtlantic...

They also make an effort to distinguish paid content from their editorial content like this article from College Board. https://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/the-college-board-2017....

Nonetheless, I'm skeptical of the proliferation of these articles in general. On the one hand, it's the talk of the whole world. On the other, what are the motives of the individuals and publications producing this content? Are they perhaps victims themselves of a subtle PR campaign? Others have said I am being too skeptical and making assumptions. I don't disagree, yet I remain skeptical.

Re: The social and economic costs borne by young people without offices

#40

Post by slykar » Fri, Sep 04, 2020, 9:55 PM UTC

supernova87a wrote: post #5

WFH has a huge difference in result depending on who you are, when you are (in your career), and where you are in a company (of organization). -- For the budding young developer who can't wait to show ideas to teammates and demonstrate being a go-getter by asking random questions and finding unaddressed issues to innovate on, WFH might be terrible. You're going to schedule time to fortuitously run into the senior per…

> For the small company CEO who relies on force of personality and everyone in the same room urgently working to get something done, WFH might be terrible.

Working remotely for a small company with a few people from around the world and it's going fine. We are in contact when we have to be. I can cut distractions when I need to. No open space office bulshit.

I was raised on IM. I'm fine communicating like this. If I need to talk I can always call someone.

In any case, you need a space to work. If you WFH you should have a space for work. I strongly believe that employers should pay you more so that you can afford an additional room. This should not be a cost cut for the employers. They should just pay you instead of paying the insane office rent.

WFH is simply different from working at an office. It will be hard for some people to learn a new way, but this major change could even redesign our cities.