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

Google won't be mandating a strict return-to-office plan

entrepreneur.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 296 posts

Re: Google won't be mandating a strict return-to-office plan

#261

Post by dsq »

KittenInABox wrote: post #43
blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do cities actually subsidize suburban infrastructure? I am skeptical but I don’t know all of the details on how people come to that conclusion. What happens if the economy is more spread out? Also a lot of the people that own and run companies that give a city its tax base live in the suburban areas. It might even be reasonable to say that they are the ones subsidizing the city and not the other way. How do you think…

It's not like cities give their money to every suburban mom. It's like this: Suburbs cannot function without freeways, but the presence of freeways harm the property values of city neighborhoods not suburban ones. SFH simply produces less tax revenue than an entire apartment building by land, so any statewide social services (education, freeway maintenance...) is paid proportionately more by cities than by SFH. There…

Aren't SFHs occupied more by high income tax brackets? That would balance out the property tax.

Re: Google won't be mandating a strict return-to-office plan

#262

Post by time0ut »

phito wrote: post #84
time0ut wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have the discipline to stop working when I work from home. Being able to go into the office every day is a nice perk for me to help structure my day. If it was a longer drive, I'd probably feel differently.

Wait you need discipline to... stop working?!

Sadly, yes. I lose track of time and allow work to consume all my waking hours. Having to travel a little helps. I still fall into it if I need to work in the evening after I get home.

Re: Google won't be mandating a strict return-to-office plan

#263

Post by datavirtue »

BeetleB wrote: post #138
xyst wrote: post #12

They say this now. But in 12 months (or the next layoff period), they will move from hybrid to full RTO. Still a shitty move to mandate RTO. Most people (IT folks) have spoke with do this routine: 0) daily routine to prepare for day 1) 1 hr commute to shitty office 2) login to computer, do calls with cross regional (and international) teams over Zoom/Teams/Webex or whatever conferencing system 3) teleconferencing wit…

I think if you're required to RTO, you should insist on not having Zoom/Teams/Webex on while in the office. "Come to my cube if you need me". Way before the pandemic, I almost never had those tools running on my work laptop - unless it was for a (rare at the time) cross-geo meeting. A coworker once sent me a screenshot of how I appeared in the IM tool - Last seen 120 days ago . Sadly, that went away once we hired our…

No one else is in the office on the same days. I recently seeked out a job that was in-office. It was just a reminder that the model is dead beyond repair. These boomer CEOs can't be gone soon enough. I'm full remote now and the engagement, interaction and team comraderie are FAR better.

Re: Google won't be mandating a strict return-to-office plan

#264

Post by mattgreenrocks »

CommieBobDole wrote: post #134
grayfaced wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if you find out that your developers were actually in North Korea and you've violated sanctions, would you care then? https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-disrupts-n...

Why do we do this all the time? Somebody makes a slightly hyperbolic statement, and everybody replies to them with the most outlandish and extreme examples of things that would be problems if they literally meant the exact thing they said. "People can wear anything they want out in public, I don't care" "Yeah, well if they wore a suit made of plutonium, or one covered with guns that fired randomly in every direction,…

The Internet, where the comment section contains a bunch of people cosplaying as compilers that somehow manage to be more pedantic than the Rust borrow checker.

Re: Google won't be mandating a strict return-to-office plan

#265

Post by Aeolun »

badlibrarian wrote: post #172
Aeolun wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is zero relation between filth and crime, and living in the city centre. At least inherently. There may be a correlation where you live.

"In 2005, Harvard University and Suffolk University researchers worked with local police to identify 34 "crime hot spots" in Lowell, Massachusetts. In half of the spots, authorities cleared trash, fixed streetlights, enforced building codes, discouraged loiterers, made more misdemeanor arrests, and expanded mental health services and aid for the homeless. In the other half of the identified locations, there was no ch…

I’m not sure what you are trying to say? It feels like you should be trying to refute what I said, but it’s actually in agreement?

Re: Google won't be mandating a strict return-to-office plan

#266

Post by red-iron-pine »

commandar wrote: post #93
barsonme wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s insane. 13 hours of work + commute. After 7 hours of sleep you only have 4 hours left in your day for literally everything else.

The push for the 8 hour work day over a century ago was often accompanied with slogans to the effect of "8 hours work, 8 hours rest, 8 hours for what we will." 5 hours round trip commuting a day is giving up over half of your prerogative time to simply shuffling from one place to another. The Bay Area is lucrative monetarily and all, but there's just no world where that's worth it for me.

A lot of people had to literally fight and die for that 8 hour day too.

Re: Google won't be mandating a strict return-to-office plan

#267

Post by sneed_chucker »

vb-8448 wrote: post #3

for the moment. my guess is that in the next 12/18 month all of major tech & big corps will follow the amazon's way.

Maybe, maybe not. Amazon has always been the most employee-hostile of the big tech companies. Google and especially FB/Meta have historically poached a lot of engineers away from them just by being more competitive with comp and benefits.

Re: Google won't be mandating a strict return-to-office plan

#268

Post by surajrmal »

deanCommie wrote: post #193
xyst wrote: post #12

They say this now. But in 12 months (or the next layoff period), they will move from hybrid to full RTO. Still a shitty move to mandate RTO. Most people (IT folks) have spoke with do this routine: 0) daily routine to prepare for day 1) 1 hr commute to shitty office 2) login to computer, do calls with cross regional (and international) teams over Zoom/Teams/Webex or whatever conferencing system 3) teleconferencing wit…

You're making it sound as if working from home was something that everyone did eternally, and not something that started in 2020 out of necessity. Going through your routine: 1) Noone forced these workers to live 1 hour from the office. In fact in the beforeCOVID times, people made an effort to live closer to where they work. Sure many can't afford to, but we're not talking about baristas here, right? But highly paid…

If you work on a distributed team, then you were already talking to a screen in the office almost constantly. It's only gotten worse since covid.

Re: Google won't be mandating a strict return-to-office plan

#269

Post by Izkata »

Aeolun wrote: post #265
badlibrarian wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In 2005, Harvard University and Suffolk University researchers worked with local police to identify 34 "crime hot spots" in Lowell, Massachusetts. In half of the spots, authorities cleared trash, fixed streetlights, enforced building codes, discouraged loiterers, made more misdemeanor arrests, and expanded mental health services and aid for the homeless. In the other half of the identified locations, there was no ch…

I’m not sure what you are trying to say? It feels like you should be trying to refute what I said, but it’s actually in agreement?

They probably read your comment as three things instead of two (I did at first and had to take a second look). Tighter binding between the paired items might make it read better, instead of the awkwardly placed comma:

> There is zero relation between filth/crime and living in the city centre.

Post reply on HN