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

64% would prefer to permanently WFH rather than get a $30k-a-year raise

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 50 posts

Re: 64% would prefer to permanently WFH rather than get a $30k-a-year raise

#31

Post by Mediterraneo10 »

carlmr wrote: post #28
Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When some cubicle-farm jobs go remote, they go remote with the employer requiring you to run surveillance software (webcam observing you, tracking of continual mouse and keyboard activity) to ensure that you are present at your computer all working hours, except authorized breaks. So, even when liberated from the office those workers don’t get all the freedoms that you might hope for.

Luckily this is highly illegal in the developed world.

Is it? Platforms like Upwork advertise this software to businesses wanting to hire freelancers as a major advantage of choosing to go through them, and I hear that trucking companies in the US regularly install cameras within their trucks to watch the drivers at all times.

Re: 64% would prefer to permanently WFH rather than get a $30k-a-year raise

#32

Post by afandian »

EliRivers wrote: post #16
afandian wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously though, working from home essentially requires permanent rental of a room on your house you might otherwise use for something else, or not need in the first place. And you foot the Internet and heating bill. Like-for-like, surely WFH should demand a higher, not lower, salary. Of course ofice vs home is often not like-for-like and it enables people to live in different locations.

essentially requires permanent rental of a room on your house you might otherwise use for something else Does it? When I'm working, I don't need that room during working hours for another purpose. I just work in it, tapping away and speaking into the microphone and so on, and when work is done, I use the room for sitting, reading, all that sort of thing; it's the lounge, I guess. Worked out fine so far.

Many people have dependents or families.

Re: 64% would prefer to permanently WFH rather than get a $30k-a-year raise

#33

Post by ac29 »

nutshell89 wrote: post #26

Arguably $30k isn't a meaningful wage increase to the people surveyed on Blind — especially if the users are heavily weighted towards the FAANG / SV / SF crowd with high housing / cost of living expenses.

Right, and a lot of the lower wage jobs never got to work from home in the first place. By definition, the question is selecting for a higher earning group.

Re: 64% would prefer to permanently WFH rather than get a $30k-a-year raise

#34

Post by hedora »

tluyben2 wrote: post #20
neverminder wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's harder for the type of management who sit in their glass aquariums and mostly make sure there are butts in seats. It makes that type of management redundant.

I am not sure if that is not a very high % of managers though. Talking with colleagues, my own experiences and reading online, it seems large groups of managers need direct control and get very stressed if they do not have that. It is easier to wield your whip if people are actually there to receive the blows.

Well, we have run a natural experiment. At least where I work, productivity doubled towards the beginning of the pandemic, and has been rising since then.

I imagine part of that is physically separating the micromanagers from their reports. Another big part is not putting everyone in a distracting cube farm.

Re: 64% would prefer to permanently WFH rather than get a $30k-a-year raise

#35

Post by splithalf »

The costs of commuting are hard to measure. It’s not home vs office so much as office with extremely stressful and increasingly dangerous 10-15 hours a week commute that makes work less productive due to cognitive and psychological carry over effects. On the other hand working from home leads to isolation and suicide. Modern life is treacherous.

Re: 64% would prefer to permanently WFH rather than get a $30k-a-year raise

#36

Post by llampx »

carlmr wrote: post #28
Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When some cubicle-farm jobs go remote, they go remote with the employer requiring you to run surveillance software (webcam observing you, tracking of continual mouse and keyboard activity) to ensure that you are present at your computer all working hours, except authorized breaks. So, even when liberated from the office those workers don’t get all the freedoms that you might hope for.

Luckily this is highly illegal in the developed world.

In a world where Amazon blue-collar jobs exist, I highly doubt that it's >>illegal<<.

Re: 64% would prefer to permanently WFH rather than get a $30k-a-year raise

#37

Post by mytailorisrich »

Dwolb wrote: post #10
mytailorisrich wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, if people value WFH then they may be willing to accept lower salary offers for those positions than they would for on-site ones. I think that's the take-away for employers here.

Something about this feels very much similar to airplane pricing. Intentionally make the default (come into work) option uncomfortable or inconvenient. Offer “upgrades” for more comfort (work from home) and convenience.

WFH is more convenient for most people. No need to make going to office less convenient.

The question what price do people put on that convenience.

But on the other hand, WFH creates savings for employers so they are actually able to pay people more for the same overall cost as working from office, if they so wish (e.g. to attract top talents in a concurrential market)

Re: 64% would prefer to permanently WFH rather than get a $30k-a-year raise

#38

Post by Mountain_Skies »

credit_guy wrote: post #24

In the real world the choice will be between WFH and a $30k cut or work in the office for the current pay.

The selection will be to change employers. Not sure how much that $30k in savings on salary is going to benefit the company when they can't retain employees.

Re: 64% would prefer to permanently WFH rather than get a $30k-a-year raise

#39

Post by Viliam1234 »

carlmr wrote: post #28
Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When some cubicle-farm jobs go remote, they go remote with the employer requiring you to run surveillance software (webcam observing you, tracking of continual mouse and keyboard activity) to ensure that you are present at your computer all working hours, except authorized breaks. So, even when liberated from the office those workers don’t get all the freedoms that you might hope for.

Luckily this is highly illegal in the developed world.

As far as I know our company does not have such surveillance software. But we all use Microsoft Teams, which changes the color of your icon from green to yellow if you leave your computer for a minute (or stop using keyboard and mouse). So I guess the only difference is whether someone looks at the icons.

Re: 64% would prefer to permanently WFH rather than get a $30k-a-year raise

#40

Post by cwdegidio »

Viliam1234 wrote: post #39
carlmr wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luckily this is highly illegal in the developed world.

As far as I know our company does not have such surveillance software. But we all use Microsoft Teams, which changes the color of your icon from green to yellow if you leave your computer for a minute (or stop using keyboard and mouse). So I guess the only difference is whether someone looks at the icons.

Just download a jiggler. Most of the icon color changing systems are just looking for some kind of user event. Turn it on when you step away and no one is the wiser. Didn’t answer a DM? You were in deep focus mode and didn’t see it, etc.
Post reply on HN