181–190 of 301 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt there are many people in tech with bad Internet. Worst case, there's Starlink. All other issues are easily solvable too, either with the right tools, or the right processes. (nb. I also think working at a coffee shop isn't for most people)
Easily solvable? Tell that to the screaming toddlers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My theory, which is kind of informed by what I saw it play out in my company: The reason is a psychological one. Most leaders derive their power from in-person interactions. Remote and video calls severely impact that. Those leaders also love having an audience that needs to listen to them whenever they are in the room and the lack of that kind of feedback and adulation shellshocked a lot of them.
Obviously this is a multi-causal issue. RTO policies spring up for a variety of reasons, often a mix. All those negative narratives sure have some founding in reality, but maybe you can think of benevolent reasons why companies call for RTO? Here is an example. Ms. Follett [1] made a good case a century ago that value is not created by people but between people. So you need interaction to add value -- something compa…
Even with mandatory, 5-day-per-week RTO, you may have 2 team members in the US, 2 in Europe and one in Bangalore, all in their respective offices in their respective timezones. The meetings are still happening over Zoom.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt there are many people in tech with bad Internet. Worst case, there's Starlink. All other issues are easily solvable too, either with the right tools, or the right processes. (nb. I also think working at a coffee shop isn't for most people)
> All other issues are easily solvable too, either with the right tools, or the right processes. By coming back to the office?
Desk, chair, lightning, monitors are easily googlable, too.
Coming back to office creates more problems than it solves.
The idea that there's a global cabal of ultra-wealthy real-estate owners who have globally conspired to control people to go back to the office holds about as much weight in my mind as the idea that there's a global cabal of ultra-wealthy who have globally conspired to create a virus to control the population. Covid was an outlier event, and the outcomes that occurred as a result of it will revert to the mean over ti…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve long suspected it’s a PR campaign/propaganda and talking points aimed directly at the c suite class. A lot of people with a lot of money stand to lose a lot. Banks, investors, retirement funds… Start circulating studies showing people working multiple remote jobs at once, steer thinking around company culture, normalize it through repetition, send out talking points. Eventually dominos will start failing.
If it would be bad for people's pension funds and such, shouldn't it be everyone's interest to actually keep showing up to prop up those real estate values?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have any evidence to back these claims up? (genuinely curious)
You can look at who owns what in their portfolios, none of this is especially private information. They publish it all online. I literally just googled "who owns the most commercial real estate" and "commercial real estate bond ownership amounts" and things like that. It's not subtle, companies tout their ownership percentages and REITs list their investors.
ETA: I agree that you did not say this was happening in your original comment, but it seems to me your comment implied that these companies were actually influencing major decisions (since that's the topic of the OP).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you link some think tank pieces arguing against remote work? I tried looking but couldn't find any. I found a few things but clearly none of these are part of an anti remote work effort: an AEI interview https://www.aei.org/workforce-development/the-future-of-remo... which seems pretty balanced overall (and doesn't take a prescriptive position) an AEI piece https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/the-trade-o…
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by think piece but you can see negative stories everywhere. The following pulled from current news on remote work: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=remote+work&atb=v379-1&iar=news&ia... https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/from-digital-nomad-to-... https://www.forbes.com/sites/julianhayesii/2024/09/22/is-ama... https://bmmagazine.co.uk/in-business/rachel-reeves-urges-end... https://…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe, maybe not. However, management bought 8 hours of your time and not 4 when they hired you.
So it's up to management to fill my time with work. If I finish my work in 4 hours, then it's not my problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I talked to an acquaintance who ran a startup that went remote during the pandemic. His view was that the self-motivated conscientious employees were just as productive remote as they were in the office, if not more. The problem was that when they left the office the people in the office became less productive. To me that makes a lot of sense and aligns well with my experience of office life. Some people depend on se…
> Don’t think he could fully grasp the question, didn’t see a problem with that at all. Ask him if he ever considered actually asking the self-motivated conscientious employees their opinion and preferences - and watch his mind boggle.
I add a thing: giants NEED the city to keep their business, who use Uber in a spread area where parking is never an issue and we all have cars? Who use JustEat where there are few restaurants around? Who buy ready-made food if most WFH? Who buy shiny macrobugs also known as smartphones, smartwatches etc where we WFH and outside there is nature, not a big city? Who will implement the "in 2030 you'll own nothing", meaning that those who say that count to own anything and rent to anyone?
That's more then mere real estate, the neofeudal economy of few big and powerful will fail to a new dynamic economy of SMEs and a free market. And yes those who are so big do not want to loose their status.