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

Nearly 40% of software engineers will only work remotely

techtarget.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 411 posts

Re: Nearly 40% of software engineers will only work remotely

#71

Post by misja111 »

Gigachad wrote: post #37
raincole wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that "office" is inherently bad. Commute time and staggering living cost in some cities are inherently bad.

The real revelation for me is just how mentally taxing driving is. I _hated_ going to the office and felt like shit every weekday. Then I moved to an inner city apartment and walked to work and I loved the office and the walk in. I’ve been remote working for 2 years now as it let met access better jobs in another city but it’s really starting to get to me so I’m moving to that city so I can get back to the office.

This. I hated driving to the office as well, and I have done it for years. At some point I got a job closer to home so I started biking to work instead. And since then I don't mind coming to the office anymore. I even like it.

Re: Nearly 40% of software engineers will only work remotely

#72

Post by Hackbraten »

prmoustache wrote: post #29
radu_floricica wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking for children under a certain age is more or less a full time job. Trying to mix it with work is, well, simply a bad decision. Over that age, and if the kids themselves can manage it... sure, it's great. You're there for breaks and emergencies - much better than being absent for the whole day.

It is more for the commuting in and out of school that it helps. My kids could walk back from school but primary school do not allows them to get out without me. This is kind of stupid as I would sign a waiver if they wanted it but they won't. So until they both reach what you call high school in the USA I have to go to the primary school and back every day. The most funny thing is sometimes I go there by bicycle, le…

> primary school do not allows them to get out without me

Please tell me you’re joking.

Re: Nearly 40% of software engineers will only work remotely

#74

Post by re-thc »

vjk800 wrote: post #65
prmoustache wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can walk to a train station in 5 minutes, then socialized with your train friends for half an hour to 45 minutes or read a book. Or if you commute by walking, cycling and running and it is considered your daily physical activity, it is fine. If you spend your time running to a bus stop, not being able to do anything in the bus because it is crowded and bouncy, then have to catch a train, that is also full then…

Who the hell has train friends?

Might be a new startup idea! Time to sell train friend subscriptions :p

Re: Nearly 40% of software engineers will only work remotely

#75

Post by re-thc »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #45
pmoriarty wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Why would I commute (and in doing so lose 2 hours of my time per day)?" Working remotely has really made me think hard about the enormous part of my life that I've wasted commuting. Never again!

When you hire a plumber to come and fix your sink, they charge a call out fee to cover the time to drive to you place and look at the job. I think in future people will clock on as soon as they walk out the door at 9, and not clock off till they get home again at 5.

It's always been a part of the cost - maybe implicitly.

Re: Nearly 40% of software engineers will only work remotely

#76

Post by sixstringtheory »

Barrin92 wrote: post #61
sharemywin wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet if we don't want a massive population decline we need to figure out how to raise kids and have a decent standard of living. Even if there's only one parent in the picture.

throw the nuclear family back into the dumpster where it belongs. The most straightforward answer how two working parents raise a kids is, they don't. At least alone. It takes a village as the proverb goes. If you have your grandparents and your uncles, aunts and other folks around as I was lucky enough to have growing up you're never bored, and they're never bored.

I agree it takes a village, and like you I was lucky to grow up with lots of aunts, uncles, and grandparents around all the time. But I don’t like the idea that it we need a village so both parents of the child can work full time.

The first couple years of a kid’s life are formative, and fleeting. Why only spend a small portion of each day together? It takes more than that to form a good bond.

Plus, grandparents might have all the free time, but aren’t as able to do everything as someone in the next younger generation. But why don’t any of the aunts and uncles have jobs, while the kid’s parents do, in your hypothetical?

The sooner we get away from 5 8s the better IMO, so we can start living richer, balanced lives. At least the commute is going, which really makes it more like 5 10s on average.

Re: Nearly 40% of software engineers will only work remotely

#77

Post by zmmmmm »

while people will all point out the benefits of working together in the office, when you weigh it against the blindingly obvious downsides:

- enormous time lost to commutes

- massive lost flexibility

- restriction of your workforce to the tiny 20 mile radius of people willing / able to physically travel to your office instead of literally the entire world (or at least, those in your time zone who speak your language)

If you put the mild benefits of "chit cat at the water cooler", "separation b/w home and work" etc which mostly only benefits the extroverts it seem utterly bonkers to sacrifice all that. Far better to invest in actually doing remote well - which does take effort and does heavily mitigate many of the things people complain about with WFH.

Re: Nearly 40% of software engineers will only work remotely

#78

Post by re-thc »

Gigachad wrote: post #69
ll_mama wrote: post #43

So let them? What's the deal, why can't we have a society where people who want to work from home, do so while those who want to work remotely do so as well? I do know that I am deciding for myself (100% remote).

Because if companies decide that in office is more productive or more reliable, remote options will dry up. And the fact most big tech companies are going back to office suggests they have the data to show it is more effective.

Are you sure it's data driven or perception?

Re: Nearly 40% of software engineers will only work remotely

#79

Post by nicbou »

zmmmmm wrote: post #77

while people will all point out the benefits of working together in the office, when you weigh it against the blindingly obvious downsides: - enormous time lost to commutes - massive lost flexibility - restriction of your workforce to the tiny 20 mile radius of people willing / able to physically travel to your office instead of literally the entire world (or at least, those in your time zone who speak your language)…

I'd rephrase "chit chat at the water cooler" as "not being alone in a room for most of the day". Others are happy to spend time away from their home, which might be unsuitable for productive work.

I am quite fine with this arrangement, but it's a bit more charitable to those who aren't.

Re: Nearly 40% of software engineers will only work remotely

#80

Post by HPsquared »

sharemywin wrote: post #49
radu_floricica wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking for children under a certain age is more or less a full time job. Trying to mix it with work is, well, simply a bad decision. Over that age, and if the kids themselves can manage it... sure, it's great. You're there for breaks and emergencies - much better than being absent for the whole day.

And yet if we don't want a massive population decline we need to figure out how to raise kids and have a decent standard of living. Even if there's only one parent in the picture.

I think it comes down to incentives.

Traditionally the economic benefit of children was that they would basically work for you, including supporting you into old age. This made the enormous investment a lot more worthwhile.

Also the childcare obligations were much less (a 12 year old could be pretty much self sufficient by working).

With pensions, no child labour, etc, the trade-off is not like that any more in economic terms. Having children is basically a total economic loss and a rational person would tend to avoid it. It's seen as a luxury nowadays, something most can't afford.

Post reply on HN