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

The Birth and Death of the Office

historytoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 130 posts

Re: The Birth and Death of the Office

#101

Post by xyzzyz »

anamax wrote: post #65
alistairSH wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly, but I imagine they could get by with less square footage, and in a less expensive space, so rent would be substantially less. But, yeah, oven and other cooking apparatus is probably the same regardless of scale (up to whatever size starts requiring duplicates). And from a societal perspective, saving on commute time/expenses but with $15 bagels is still better than wasting 2+ hours/day, additional car expen…

You forgot labor. A huge bagel store will use humans more efficiently than a small one. One big problem with "lots of shops" is that they require lots of retail workers, workers who spend much of their paid time not working. Prices reflect that. It's unclear to me why urbanists think that wasting humans on retail is so important.

Stuff at small stores costs more money than stuff at big stores. As you point out, labor efficiency is one of the reasons, but there are others too. Regular people know this very well. The “urbanists” active in HN threads are typically well-off enough that they don’t care about whether their grocery bill is $50 or $60. That’s good for them, but expecting everyone else to follow suit is rather out of touch.

Re: The Birth and Death of the Office

#102

Post by dan-robertson »

999900000999 wrote: post #31
osigurdson wrote: post #21

I don't think there is anything else more illogical in modern society than waking up in building A, hopping in a car and fighting traffic for an hour to get to building B just to sit in front of a computer for 8 hours (perhaps with a few minimally productive meetings here and there), then commute back to building A 8 hours later. Building B sits empty for 16 hours a day while Building A sits empty for 10 with both be…

The point is to keep local economies alive. It's not about us, it's about the guy who delivers lunch, or the girl who owns the bagel shop. However, offices are straight up abelist , if you have mobility issues it's absurdly hard to commute. Commuting isn't really needed here, if I was in a wheelchair I'd take this to court. Full tin foil hat time, if remote work was the norm the entire commercial real estate sector w…

For many American cities the CBD/downtown (and sometimes older streetcar suburbs) are the only profitable areas in the sense that they pay more in tax than it costs the no city to provide municipal services. Newer suburbs and exurbs don’t pay their way and are subsidised by the centre and unsustainably financed.

Re: The Birth and Death of the Office

#103

Post by dan-robertson »

ultim8k wrote: post #20

Office sucks. Let me list a few things: - Hot desks - People laughing and constantly talking while you are trying to focus - Unstable temperature making you freeze or boil - Uncomfortable and unhealthy desks/chairs - Often lack of proper screens/equipment - Getting squeezed in trains to commute - spending at best an extra hour per day - Unhealthy and expensive dietary options around work - Contamination of diseases -…

It sounds like you just have a bad office though. Eg I don’t hot-desk; if I had a problem with my chair I could ask for a different one (e.g. something like an aeron or something wacky looking); I have good screens and for most equipment I could just ask for something if I needed it. It’s typically easier to get these things in the office than at home and certain necessary upgrades for working from home (eg faster Internet, dedicated office space) could be very expensive and/or impossible without moving.

Re: The Birth and Death of the Office

#104

Post by KronisLV »

ozim wrote: post #99
burade wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone with lots of weird quirks, and who is very likely on the autism spectrum, working from home may have literally saved my career.

Isn't it long term doing more harm? By no means I am on autism spectrum but interacting with people or having to deal with strangers takes my energy away. Staying at home is nice - but then I build up so much social anxiety that when I really have to go out and do something with people it is just awful. Putting myself out there for "training" helps so my issues don't build up.

> Putting myself out there for "training" helps so my issues don't build up.

That is a good point and probably a nice argument for venturing outside of one's zone of comfort occasionally.

That said, what about people whose quirks make others reflect negatively upon them? Something like ticks that make other people uncomfortable (had a person occasionally grunt loudly at the office, really distracting), yet wouldn't really make their actual work performance any worse? If those ticks are involuntary, sometimes they might prefer to partake in remote work.

Moreso, what about people who are anxious, agoraphobic or have avoidant personality disorder, or something like it? People who might socialize in a limited set of circumstances, but might have to deal with panic attacks or undue stress in larger meetings or other types of social situations? Dealing with all of that due to no alternatives might be pretty debilitating and demotivating and might not be something "solvable" (at least in the short term), yet the person still should be able to make money so they can survive.

Of course, I cannot make claims for others, but personally it's nice that we can accommodate various types of people and their preferences, as long as they actually get things done at no significant expense to anyone else.

Re: The Birth and Death of the Office

#105

Post by xyzzyz »

jmspring wrote: post #45
mahathu wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i like hanging out and talking to my coworkers, it's fun:)

I find it ok to see and visit coworkers now and then, but work is not meant to replace one's social life. Further, some years back, I attended a couple different "Work at a Startup" and related events. Companies pushing "we are a family", "we hang out after work" typically means they have an unreasonable expectation of how much time they expect you to be around - despite productivity. Do I have colleagues (current or…

> I find it ok to see and visit coworkers now and then, but work is not meant to replace one's social life.

Work has been a critical component of social life for many generations now. It is extremely strange to offhandedly dismiss its role like that.

> Do I have colleagues (current or former) that are friends? Yes. Do/did I feel a need to be in the office to spend time with them - no.

I started my previous job in mid 2019. I made multiple friends at the office in 8 months before the lockdowns started that I still keep in touch with. After we went full remote, I worked there for an extra year. During that time, my team have doubled in size. Not only I did not make friends with any of the new colleagues, I don’t even remember their names now.

I finally quit in 2021, because I absolutely loathed full time WFH. I am now commuting to the office every day, with rather arduous 50-60 minutes one way commute, and I am extremely happy, making friends again and feeling very motivated.

Re: The Birth and Death of the Office

#106

Post by alliao »

zelos wrote: post #84
dijit wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked in open offices for 10 years. I’d kill for a cubicle. Everyone is different of course but open offices, lack of visual privacy, lack of personal space, it just drains me.

I agree - in a UK open office I’m maybe 2 metres from a coworker if we both squeezed to opposite ends of our desks. Headphones are the only way to get any work done. Our US colleagues have acres of space in comparison.

i worked for a blue chip finance dept in mayfair a lifetime ago, squeezed maybe 25 of us in a room no bigger than say 35m^2 i could literally elbow my colleagues

Re: The Birth and Death of the Office

#107

Post by ricardobayes »

osigurdson wrote: post #21

I don't think there is anything else more illogical in modern society than waking up in building A, hopping in a car and fighting traffic for an hour to get to building B just to sit in front of a computer for 8 hours (perhaps with a few minimally productive meetings here and there), then commute back to building A 8 hours later. Building B sits empty for 16 hours a day while Building A sits empty for 10 with both be…

Might be a short-sighted comment but perhaps we could ease the housing issues by converting the offices into long-term accomodation

Re: The Birth and Death of the Office

#108

Post by ozim »

KronisLV wrote: post #104
ozim wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it long term doing more harm? By no means I am on autism spectrum but interacting with people or having to deal with strangers takes my energy away. Staying at home is nice - but then I build up so much social anxiety that when I really have to go out and do something with people it is just awful. Putting myself out there for "training" helps so my issues don't build up.

> Putting myself out there for "training" helps so my issues don't build up. That is a good point and probably a nice argument for venturing outside of one's zone of comfort occasionally. That said, what about people whose quirks make others reflect negatively upon them? Something like ticks that make other people uncomfortable (had a person occasionally grunt loudly at the office, really distracting), yet wouldn't r…

To clarify, I do not have a general answer for everyone I described my own feelings/approach from last 2 years.

That was my question to parent poster if he considered that "always remote" might fix some issue right now so he could keep his job - but what about working to handle quirks/anxiety so in the future if he really needs to switch jobs putting himself out there with people might help.

Re: The Birth and Death of the Office

#109

Post by 999900000999 »

distances wrote: post #90
999900000999 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct, but where's all that trillion dollar commercial real estate going ? Cities don't have much of a reason to exist, at least not in their current form, with WFH.

> Cities don't have much of a reason to exist, at least not in their current form, with WFH. Are you assuming people would rather live in suburbs and countryside then? I would definitely still live in the city, and my first thought of offices closing was "great, more space for residential buildings".

Not everyone, but you'd have less of a reason to consolidate so many people in a relatively small space.

It's much much cheaper to live outside of major cities. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, office buildings are a massive source of tax revenue for cities.

This is the entire reason you have this push to bring everyone back.

Re: The Birth and Death of the Office

#110

Post by vajrabum »

dan-robertson wrote: post #102
999900000999 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is to keep local economies alive. It's not about us, it's about the guy who delivers lunch, or the girl who owns the bagel shop. However, offices are straight up abelist , if you have mobility issues it's absurdly hard to commute. Commuting isn't really needed here, if I was in a wheelchair I'd take this to court. Full tin foil hat time, if remote work was the norm the entire commercial real estate sector w…

For many American cities the CBD/downtown (and sometimes older streetcar suburbs) are the only profitable areas in the sense that they pay more in tax than it costs the no city to provide municipal services. Newer suburbs and exurbs don’t pay their way and are subsidised by the centre and unsustainably financed.

I've heard that story before, but never seen any data that substantiates it. I'm interested in it. Where did you come by this opinion?
Post reply on HN