161–170 of 699 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You really need sources to decide that reducing commuting is a good idea for the environment?
The question is what affect it would have. If it’s minuscule compared to a single bulk cargo freighter it may just be window dressing and greenwashing. If it would reduce 20% of all energy usage worldwide it would hugely significant.
Don't forget, to the CEO and their cronies you are all just peons. If they could pay you nothing at all they would absolutely do so.
What a bizarre statement. If you could just not pay your mortgage, or not make your car payments, or just walk out of a restaurant without paying and no repercussions, wouldn't you?
The cost of commuting on the environment is extremely high. We should be offering incentives to companies to switch to remote work. If 20% of jobs permanently switched to remote, the impact on carbon emissions would be immediate, and extremely positive.
I'm used to the conversation in here being extremely US-centric, but realize that this is much less true for European cities with good public transportation. I haven't ever used a car to go to work in my life. I'm also very concerned about this better world where people stay home to save the planet. The common level of social interactions in the modern world is already low enough in my opinion. EDIT: It rarely happen…
It's weird how directly the incentive is to increase your carbon footprint. They'll essentially pay you more for contributing to congestion and pollution.
How's that? If you live in NYC, you get paid more. People who live in NYC have the amongst the lowest carbon footprint in the nation. If you live in a dense urban area, you generally will have a lower carbon footprint.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm used to the conversation in here being extremely US-centric, but realize that this is much less true for European cities with good public transportation. I haven't ever used a car to go to work in my life. I'm also very concerned about this better world where people stay home to save the planet. The common level of social interactions in the modern world is already low enough in my opinion. EDIT: It rarely happen…
> good public transportation. Public transportation has a higher environment cost than staying at home to work. That should be fairly obvious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
don't forget the coffee ... lots of coffee.
anecdotally my 150-person office consumed about $40k in coffee each year. not a huge amount compared to salary and benefits, but not peanuts either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm used to the conversation in here being extremely US-centric, but realize that this is much less true for European cities with good public transportation. I haven't ever used a car to go to work in my life. I'm also very concerned about this better world where people stay home to save the planet. The common level of social interactions in the modern world is already low enough in my opinion. EDIT: It rarely happen…
> good public transportation. Public transportation has a higher environment cost than staying at home to work. That should be fairly obvious.
Class A office space in Manhattan is about $70/sqft, and the average office employee gets 150 sqft allocated (desk, hallway, conference room, supply closets...) Google is probably 170. That's $11900 annually that they save by not having an employee take up office space. No, it's not fungible on a small scale, but it's certainly fungible on a large scale: reduce your office needs by 100 people and you can rearrange de…
Am surprise by the census data for Lake Tahoe and the 25% drop in salary that goes with it. Isn’t this a super wealthy area? This is going to hurt the Googlers who where going to trade their primary home for their secondary one.
> One Google employee, who asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation, typically commutes to the Seattle office from a nearby county and would likely see their pay cut by about 10% by working from home full-time, according estimates by the company's Work Location Tool launched in June. > The employee was considering remote work but decided to keep going to the office - despite the two-hour commute. This seems…
It's not a 25% increase in work time, it's a 50+% reduction in free time.