221–230 of 490 posts
One of my favorite pieces of trivia is how social greetings changed post-industrialization.
Now when you meet people you ask: “What do you do?” which implies a utilitarian view of ‘what is your role in the economy’
Pre-industrialization, one would ask: “Who are you?” e.g. where is your family from, how are you related, who do you know, where do you live, etc.
As someone who has worked from home for a decade, I predict a mental health apocalypse in the near future. Working from home permanently requires support infrastructure not everyone has access to. It also requires a different approach to work altogether which, again, not everyone is capable of adopting. If you have family, work from home is great. But if you're single, staying cooped up alone at home can be a disaste…
I find this expectation really strange. It's like 'violence in games', if you refer to it everyone will nod, but how it became such a widely accepted fact is at best unclear. I'm sure some cases of it happened somewhere, there are some papers, and some appeal to authority is a given, but do we really know if WFH equals mental health issues en masse? For example, I wonder if: long commute, all the preparation before/a…
That being said, I agree with you here. I our current work situation right now is causing a ton of stress and mental health issues, but COVID and our current political climate have a much bigger hand in that than just the WFH part. What WFH looks like right now is not what a 100% WFH lifestyle would look like in a year or two. I've had the ability to WFH when ever I wanted for the past 4 years and I can tell you, my current WFH situation is much more draining that it ever was before.
I think your video game analogy is pretty spot on. There are problems with 100% WFH, but "mass mental health issues" just seems like a boogieman.
To be clear (if you only read the headline :)), not entirely remote. Solo work at home, collaborative work in "studios", basically reimagining the offices into collaborative/convening spaces that you go into from ~once/week to once a quarter depending on team/role. Remote-only cuts out the in-person experience entirely, which is problematic for building teams and culture; and ad hoc "WFH whenever you feel like it" ge…
> collaborative work in "studios", basically reimagining the offices into collaborative/convening spaces that you go into from ~once/week to once a quarter depending on team/role. Doesn't this also have the problem with neither flexibility nor community, especially for once a quarter? More importantly, this means that people now have to maintain their own home offices but still have to live close to a big city and pa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of us naysayers failed to appreciate the foresight that Mr Neumann and Softbank displayed. Joke's on us :D
The fundamentals were not bad ideas. Regus has been doing things similar to WeWork for decades. Neumann committing fraud, poor cash management, and self-dealing conflicts of interest are what killed WeWork. Not the coworking space concept.
I could definitely understand the business model (it's cloud computing for real-estate!) and especially cool for remote/business travelers since from what I understand it was rather easy for a WeWork user to use any of their facilities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't it be easier to compensate for these costs via salary increases? Not everyone will have the same needs, and attempting to track everyone's expenses seems more complicated than necessary. Although, come to think of it, it might make sense to mark some amount of money as an "equipment stipend" or similar on paychecks. That way, it's clear to both parties what the funds are intended for, even if there's no actu…
Also for tax reasons. If they reimburse you $1000 for equipment, you don’t have to pay income tax or any other tax on that $1000 and neither do they.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like you, I am genuinely baffled by "WFH 4 days a week" arrangements (as compared to "WFH when you have errands that make it necessary", which is pretty common). If I have to come into the office 1 day a week, then I still have to foot the bill for a home office within driving range of the office, which sucks. I think at once a quarter you're starting to look at the ability to live on the other side of the country an…
If your office is in SF, WFH 4 days a week doesn't let you live in ultra-low-cost rural Iowa but it could let you at least work in slightly-lower-cost Modesto or even Redding. Not ideal but better than a $4K/mo SF apartment. I think I'd be willing to live with a 4 hour commute once a week (or get your private pilot's license and you're about 1.5 hours away). Not convenient but do-able.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
5. don't like the barrier to communication, isolation, and distraction that WFH brings. It's not for everyone, don't act like WFH is some sort of amazing thing that only people in bad situations or who are incompetent dislike. 1. is straight up incorrect anyway, my schedule has gotten more consistent since working from home. It's entirely based on your own ability to start and stop your workday.
Yeah, I'm 7 months into being forced to WFH and I still hate it. I like the work/life separation going into the office brings. I actually liked my commute since I took the bus, so it was time to read and decompress. I like seeing and talking to my coworkers. I like having the variety of simply being out of the house. I like not having work stuff at home, so when I'm home, I don't have the temptation to do work. I'm g…
To be clear (if you only read the headline :)), not entirely remote. Solo work at home, collaborative work in "studios", basically reimagining the offices into collaborative/convening spaces that you go into from ~once/week to once a quarter depending on team/role. Remote-only cuts out the in-person experience entirely, which is problematic for building teams and culture; and ad hoc "WFH whenever you feel like it" ge…
> which is problematic for building teams and culture; Why? I've been remote for about 8 years. I don't think I've had any problems building relationships. The only thing you miss from the office is the time spent screwing around with co-workers. I guess you could consider that "Team building".
I'm sure I could have cultivated those relationships over the course of working there much longer but I don't think there would be any virtual substitute for that one soccer game.
To be clear (if you only read the headline :)), not entirely remote. Solo work at home, collaborative work in "studios", basically reimagining the offices into collaborative/convening spaces that you go into from ~once/week to once a quarter depending on team/role. Remote-only cuts out the in-person experience entirely, which is problematic for building teams and culture; and ad hoc "WFH whenever you feel like it" ge…
[1] - https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2017/10/10/dro...
WFH saves money for the company, I just hope that some of the expensive (to the company) perks like prime real estate, free meals, exercise programs, etc. can be translated into at least a minimal budget per employee of: Internet connection reimbursement, annual budget for workspace improvements (ideally with a large initial budget, like $1000 or more for desk, monitor, chair, etc.), and possibly some other perks. Bu…
My company did internet reimbursement. But most people don't know that there are massive tax benefits to working from home (at least in Canada) you can write off the percentage of your house you work in of your rent and stuff like that. That alone can equal a $1000 a year or so. But from a company point of view, getting rid of the office is a massive save in money, so I suspect some will increase salaries or offer ot…
The "massive tax benefit" is not that large for most people. Perhaps if you have dedicated office space and a large mortgage.
I did the math for my T2200 and the total tax benefit was $500/yr.