201–210 of 531 posts
Eh, I love my company and I love my coworkers and I’m unbelievably excited to see them in person. In fact, I’ve already started going back into the office (since April) and 1) my productivity is easily 5-10x what it was before 2) I’ve had amazing so many conversations that never happened over zoom — both productive and personal - and as more of our company’s employees return over the coming months I’m even excited fo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People just have different preferences. I'm always surprised how HN treats WFH as _obviously_ superior and desirable in every way, to the point where OP is claiming these mega corps may collapse if they ask their employees to come into the office.
There's a bias towards tech company and startups here. Those are concentrated in places like the Bay Area, NYC Metro, Boston Metro, Atlanta Metro, DC Metro, etc. Those places are all commuting hellscapes, so there's almost no scenario where you wouldn't do WFH if you could. My dad did the Queens-Manhattan bus/subway/express subway/walk treadmill for most of his career -- not fun. I live in a small city with a 6 minut…
Eh, I love my company and I love my coworkers and I’m unbelievably excited to see them in person. In fact, I’ve already started going back into the office (since April) and 1) my productivity is easily 5-10x what it was before 2) I’ve had amazing so many conversations that never happened over zoom — both productive and personal - and as more of our company’s employees return over the coming months I’m even excited fo…
> my productivity is easily 5-10x what it was before How are you measuring this? Those numbers seem incredulous.
The Departed said it best: "World needs plenty of bartenders." Every employee- and every manager- at every not-trivially sized firm is replaceable. Resigning is ABSOLUTELY THE WORST response, both individually and collectively, for those interested in enshrining a more remote friendly ecosystem.
Not if you are refining in favor of entrepreneurship providing remote-friendly work, or taking available remote-friendly work. Heck, even just withdrawing labor from the market arguably helps.
Reducing the supply of workers who treat remote-hostile work as acceptable is the only way to enshrine a more remote-friendly ecosystem.
Am 'flagging' this article. Even if true, it is not clearly based on anything substantive IMHO.
I think regardless of the stats, there is a movement of people wanting a better work and life balance. But what will this mean for society? For one, I see in the immediate future a bit of a reduction in commerce for a while. This is simply because people will have less money To spend. Duh. Still… humans always persist and adapt. Therefore in maybe 5 years there will be more of a Renaissance and a big change in how we…
People have more money now than ever before. I wouldn't expect a reduction in commerce in aggregate because ~3% of the workforce quit temporarily or even permanently.
I won't be surprised if inflation gets so high that there's a reduction real terms. But that hasn't happened yet.
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Before the pandemic FANGs seemed to want everyone in the office as much as possible. That's why they have their own cafeterias/restaurants, daycare, workout rooms, etc. They wanted employees in the office, working a minimum of 40 hours a week. I'm guessing even though remote work is going fine for now, they're concerned they're not going to be able to keep getting over 40 hours of week out of employees. (This is conj…
> (This is conjecture on my part, I have no idea how many hours FANG employees tend to work). Then don't conjecture. Speculation doesn't add to the conversation. In the absence of evidence, it just spreads a misinformation virus.
Humans are deductive creatures and we're not terrible at constructing and testing hypotheses. A lot of value can be derived from discussing inconclusive topics, and an understanding of new subject matter can be established for those unfamiliar. It's a valuable exercise to walk through supporting facts.
I wish we didn't cry every time we conjecture.
I’m honestly perplexed what the FANGs are even thinking in being so aggressive about pushing an end to WFH. Sure it could all work out fine for them. Maybe employees will grumble for a bit, then settle back into office life. But maybe it wont’t . There’s a very real possibility that you lose a non-negligible percent of your staff (disproportionately the most talented who have other options), handicap your ability to…
I get it, you like to WFH - that's great. But your anecdotes aren't data.
Fine, you want to WFH? Awesome, expect a pay cut. Part of a modern white-collar salary has some expectations built into it, like the fact that people need to be compensated for the inconveniences of leaving their homes and coming to the office and therefore having to pay for things like childcare, cars, clothing, parking, etc. Don't have those expenses anymore? Then why should I compensate you the same as if you did?…
Why should I pay you more than some other remote worker in India, who'll work for a third of your pay? You know they have plenty of bossy assholes in India too, right? Hell, GPT3 could probably do 80% of most managers' jobs already...
Fine, you want to WFH? Awesome, expect a pay cut. Part of a modern white-collar salary has some expectations built into it, like the fact that people need to be compensated for the inconveniences of leaving their homes and coming to the office and therefore having to pay for things like childcare, cars, clothing, parking, etc. Don't have those expenses anymore? Then why should I compensate you the same as if you did?…
Salaries aren't based on expenses, but that'd be pretty neat if they were. :D With that said, I'd gladly make less than those that have to work in the office.