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

The Winners of Remote Work

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 276 posts

Re: The Winners of Remote Work

#71

Post by ThePadawan »

nathanvanfleet wrote: post #63
ThePadawan wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if you consider Remote Global Work. As a European, it is very disheartening to see how many companies espouse "we are now embracing remote work company-wide", which on closer inspection means "California hours +-2h time difference".

It's not nearly as easy to have people in a timezone 16 hours offset than you might think. So I am not surprised that they would be two very different decisions.

Right, so that's the point where your job offer should say "Remote - US" or "Remote - UTC-8 +-3h".

And I have seen a few companies do that! I would say that this is around 20% of the companies.

The other 80% simply list those jobs as "Remote", so they show up on their job pages under all continents, or at least, under their "outside the US" filters.

Then sometimes it's not mentioned at the top of the job offer, but in the footnotes with the "we hire regardless of disability etc." statements.

All of these things are fine. They're just a far cry from that blog post that the CEO made 10 months into quarantine, talking about how the company will open itself to global remote work.

Re: The Winners of Remote Work

#72

Post by slavapestov »

vehemenz wrote: post #36
seibelj wrote: post #6

> There are already examples of how gains are captured by the few and not the many. The New York Times - "Feel Bad About Everything, Always" Remote work is amazing, net on net it vastly improves lives, reduces commute time / traffic / car pollution, reverses the decades long trend of economic activity centralizing in a few boom cities, and I believe will reduce inequality longterm as workers will be able to get good,…

You'd have a stronger argument if remote work didn't have the potential to increase rural living and exurban sprawl, both of which contribute massively to energy waste and ecological destruction. At least in the US. Boom cities were never the problem. The problem is commuting, which stems from a lack of housing. Forcing everyone out of the cities creates a worse set of problems. It means more wasteful roads to nowher…

Demand for homes in dense cities outstrips supply though, and I suspect this will continue to hold even if all office jobs offered remote work as an option to those that want it.

Nevermind the fact that only a fraction of all jobs can be meaningfully done remotely, and a majority of employees wouldn't take the option if it was offered anyway.

You can argue that remote work drives demand for larger spaces, but again this comes down to the housing shortage. There's no reason that more 2 and 3 bedroom apartments couldn't be built if taller buildings were actually allowed to be built in the cities where demand for housing is high.

Re: The Winners of Remote Work

#73

Post by mlac »

pc86 wrote: post #55
mlac wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really do think the “old guard” has the most to lose from commercial real estate investments. Think about who sits on the board for a major company… It’s owners and executives from commercial real estate firms. There is a ton of money around commercial real estate, so letting it all just collapse (or losing even 10% of that market) is billions of dollars shifted around the economy. Most “normal” people who are work…

What evidence do you have that major companies' boards are filled with "executives from commercial real estate firms?"

Sorry and thank you for calling it out.

I should have written “Executives with interest in commercial real estate”. From heads of consulting firms to executives with commercial real estate in their own organizations, nearly all of them have a strong interest in commercial real estate doing well. I would expect most, if not all large companies to have exposure to commercial real estate and many make a lot of money from building and investing in commercial real estate.

But the people that have the strongest interest in this doing well are the people who are in the boardroom. I really think there are few similar issues where the interest of the board and the interest of employees are opposed (many workers want to stay home, many board members want them back in the office).

Take Google - Robin L. Washington sits on Google’s board and also Honeywell’s. Honeywell has $5 BN on their books in “Property, plant, and equipment”. Not sure how much of that is office buildings vs. manufacturing, but still even 10% is $500 M.

It’s not like it’s some major conspiracy, it’s just that boards are small, you can make hops between large companies, and it only takes a small push to make all large corporations lean toward return to work. For most companies with exposure to real estate it makes sense. Most others’ (I’d argue) have board members with an interest in propping up commercial real estate. Most common people do not have a direct interest, but will feel pain if the commercial real estate market significantly changes.

Re: The Winners of Remote Work

#74

Post by handrous »

wintermutestwin wrote: post #51
bennysomething wrote: post #11

This is partly why I keep thinking I should have become an electrician or a carpenter: the only real competition is local, there is always demand in cities. I knew a very wealthy electrician who started his own business and it seems to be a common path. Unlike programming where the common path is work for someone else and burn out.

As someone who grew up on construction sites before escaping to cushy office work, I can tell you that there are a lot of negatives that many don't consider when romanticizing the trades. Physical work means physical risks: From injuries to long term issues with knees, backs and shoulders. From constant exposure to toxic materials to the ever enjoyable dust boogers. There's a reason that tradespeople get paid what th…

From what I've seen, the smart ones with good business sense are the ones who make real money in the trades, and they're mostly doing sales, supervision, training, and maybe personally handling some limited amount of the trickier bits of the actual labor (or cases where they have to come back to fix things, if they really care about customer service), by some time in their 30s. They may acquire some minor, persistent aches and pains from the work in their 20s or early 30s, but are mostly out of the rougher side of the job before it seriously harms their QOL. Like a lot of business, the real money's in selling other people's labor at a markup, not in selling your own labor.

Re: The Winners of Remote Work

#75

Post by ghaff »

umeshunni wrote: post #69
ghaff wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not convinced a lot of these trends stick post-COVID. A lot of people like the in-person part of the spin class and probably would prefer it to the highly-paid video pro. That said, behaviors will have changed for a lot of things over the course of a couple of years. People have developed new habits. Not all of that--including going into an office five days a week in many cases--are going to just reset.

The same principles that apply to remote work apply here. Why would I want to drive 10-15 minutes, park, change and all that for a 30 or 60 minute spin class when I can take that same class in my garage or living room.

Because you want to get out of the house and socialize with people as well as get some exercise. Now some of the same logic does apply to people wanting to get back into office. But I doubt it's true to the same degree and most people have more than a 10-15 minute commute.

While I have no personal interest in gyms or exercise classes, they are social for many people.

Re: The Winners of Remote Work

#76

Post by googlr29783 »

avnigo wrote: post #53

> Google [...] would reduce the pay of those who choose to work remotely or move farther from the office. Avoiding the office saves employees money — in commuting costs, for example I don't understand the reasoning behind this, and I've seen it being used again and again. Employees are compensated on the work they provide during work hours, and only rarely do companies provide compensation to specifically accommodate…

> Google [...] would reduce the pay of those who choose to work remotely or move farther from the office.

Sample size of 1 here: Google approved my working remotely in a small town outside a major city at the same compensation as working in the office in that major city. So no pay cut.

I think there's a game of telephone going on with the facts in these articles:

"could see different changes in pay" -> could lose money" -> "would reduce pay"

Re: The Winners of Remote Work

#77

Post by handrous »

quadrifoliate wrote: post #58
ThePadawan wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do totally get it. I only take an issue with the (maybe unintentional) duplicity of pretending that "remote work in the continental US" can only mean "remote work".

I have seen many European companies as well who do this unintentional duplicity of "remote" meaning "anywhere in the EU/EEA". In addition to the obvious time zone constraints, I think payroll taxes and such are a major regulatory boundary that you need to cross in addition to having "all your shit together" as one of the top comments puts it.

> In addition to the obvious time zone constraints, I think payroll taxes and such are a major regulatory boundary that you need to cross in addition to having "all your shit together" as one of the top comments puts it.

This can be annoying even across state boundaries, let alone internationally, for smaller companies that aren't already operating in several states. Consider also things like group health insurance, which are often geographically bound (sometimes even to a single city).

Re: The Winners of Remote Work

#78

Post by edgyquant »

umeshunni wrote: post #69
ghaff wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not convinced a lot of these trends stick post-COVID. A lot of people like the in-person part of the spin class and probably would prefer it to the highly-paid video pro. That said, behaviors will have changed for a lot of things over the course of a couple of years. People have developed new habits. Not all of that--including going into an office five days a week in many cases--are going to just reset.

The same principles that apply to remote work apply here. Why would I want to drive 10-15 minutes, park, change and all that for a 30 or 60 minute spin class when I can take that same class in my garage or living room.

There's a difference between social interaction because you want it and working. I work from home and use the gym and martial as (non-drinking) social time during the week.

Re: The Winners of Remote Work

#79

Post by edgyquant »

raverbashing wrote: post #60
wintermutestwin wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who grew up on construction sites before escaping to cushy office work, I can tell you that there are a lot of negatives that many don't consider when romanticizing the trades. Physical work means physical risks: From injuries to long term issues with knees, backs and shoulders. From constant exposure to toxic materials to the ever enjoyable dust boogers. There's a reason that tradespeople get paid what th…

Correct Electricians have to work in less than desirable conditions (dusty attics, outdoors, etc). Most of the material is your responsibility. Accidents can and do happen. The days where you are less than 100% but you would be able to WFH don't exist. Think it's annoying to plug a network cable under your desk? It's like that but 7hrs per day or more.

Electrical is like plugging in a network cable through the wall and up the ceiling, then down a really slim corridor to another wall, before finally placing the cord in the PC (all while trying to not pump another cord going the same route.) I worked beside a couple of electricians in my early 20s and it was fun but frustrating (like programming.)

Re: The Winners of Remote Work

#80

Post by sokoloff »

vehemenz wrote: post #46
ghaff wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The problem is commuting, which stems from a lack of housing. I think you'll find that a great many people don't want to live in the denser areas where offices often tend to be. You can scold about that all you want, but you could make cities arbitrarily dense and a lot of people, indeed more, wouldn't want to live in them if they weren't making a commuting tradeoff because of work.

If you're going to quote a line, quote the context. The OP was talking about "boom cities" as a problem, which they aren't by themselves. The problem is the unaffordability of the cities, caused by lack of housing, which leads folks to live outside of the city and commute. My main point was that arguing for remote work/sprawl was not a ecologically-friendly argument. Sure, lots of people want to live in the middle of…

That seems like a perfectly fine amount of context to quote to me. You could make cities as dense as you want and many people would explicitly choose to live in an area where they can have a private yard. There’s no strategy of densification that will preserve that for everyone.

You can make the inside of your box as amazing as you can imagine and some (not small) segment of people will opt to live where the sun can shine into their yard.

Post reply on HN