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

What if remote working, not AI, is to blame for weak junior hiring?

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 394 posts

Re: What if remote working, not AI, is to blame for weak junior hiring?

#51

Post by moffkalast »

mattdeboard wrote: post #5

The way this position conforms to the interests of the capital class, and conflicts with those of the labor class, is a red flag. It simultaneously and conveniently: 1. takes the heat off AI blowback 2. synergizes perfectly with "RTO" mandates (to the extent this needed synergy to become A Widespread Thing) On that basis alone, I'll wait for further analysis. Edit: to be clear I'm no anti-AI holdout, and I actually d…

Their next post's gonna be how building new datacenters is clearly great for everyone based on trickle down economics.

Re: What if remote working, not AI, is to blame for weak junior hiring?

#52

Post by jay_kyburz »

SilverElfin wrote: post #37

Or how about we make remote work mandatory where possible so the economy lets people live their lives. Getting back unpaid time from commutes and being able to reorganize work time freely makes a huge difference.

Haha, Your still supposed to actually work when you're at home.

Re: What if remote working, not AI, is to blame for weak junior hiring?

#55

Post by aspbee555 »

I got significantly more work accomplished when I worked remotely. There was tons of work I could not do from the office as people needed the systems I need to work on and could only be done out of hours/remotely.

When in the office I got a lot of people complaining/pissed I was leaving early because I got there an hour or more before everyone so I could get more work done/do the work on systems they needed. The only thing I got while in the office was constant interruptions for things a junior could have handled. Meetings was a bad word, never allowed, so there was really no reason for me to be there constantly (I could have done most of my job remotely and gone into the office once or twice a week)

I hired a junior I was eager to mentor/train to replace me, they proceeded to throw endless things I did at them expecting them to fill the multiple hats I was filling (to the point they pushed them to work on very dangerous equipment and got themselves hurt)

Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't

I absolutely loved the work I did. I GTFO of that misery that was only miserable/got me crucified due to the stupid shit people made up in their head instead of the actual work I did

Re: What if remote working, not AI, is to blame for weak junior hiring?

#56

Post by atomicnumber3 »

Negitivefrags wrote: post #16
mattdeboard wrote: post #5

The way this position conforms to the interests of the capital class, and conflicts with those of the labor class, is a red flag. It simultaneously and conveniently: 1. takes the heat off AI blowback 2. synergizes perfectly with "RTO" mandates (to the extent this needed synergy to become A Widespread Thing) On that basis alone, I'll wait for further analysis. Edit: to be clear I'm no anti-AI holdout, and I actually d…

> The way this position conforms to the interests of the capital class, and conflicts with those of the labor class, is a red flag. If being in the office conforms to the interest of the capital class, it implies that WFH is inherently less efficient. This is one of those things that I often find strange with work from home advocates. They seem to imply that business owners just want employees to suffer as a goal in…

"If being in the office conforms to the interest of the capital class, it implies that WFH is inherently less efficient"

only if the capital class is solely motivated by efficiency. I think this is trivially demonstrable to be not the case.

The capital class's primary interest is self-preservation - both of their capital, of course, but also preserving their place in the pecking order. And they'll spend a LOT of the former to maintain the latter because the latter is how they got the former.

Through that lens, GP's point is perfectly coherent.

"They seem to imply that business owners just want employees to suffer as a goal in itself."

Have you met... people? Yes there are literally many owners who do want employees to suffer. Or, perhaps worse, will tolerate tremendous amounts of suffering in the pursuit of minor other gains. (Amazon pee bottles come to mind.) It would somehow be a comforting kind of moustache-twirling comic book evil to say they just want people to suffer. Another to say they simply don't value human happiness (or lack of suffering) enough to not trade large amounts of it for small things they do care about.

I had a boss who was only willing to hire non-whites because he could inflict undesirable work on them, leaving more desirable work for the white employees.

I just want to end this by remarking that this presumption of owners being perfectly optimal, morally clean agents of free markets is absurd and honestly disgusting to bring to an argument.

Re: What if remote working, not AI, is to blame for weak junior hiring?

#57

Post by atomicnumber3 »

graemep wrote: post #15
mattdeboard wrote: post #5

The way this position conforms to the interests of the capital class, and conflicts with those of the labor class, is a red flag. It simultaneously and conveniently: 1. takes the heat off AI blowback 2. synergizes perfectly with "RTO" mandates (to the extent this needed synergy to become A Widespread Thing) On that basis alone, I'll wait for further analysis. Edit: to be clear I'm no anti-AI holdout, and I actually d…

RTO mandates are primarily pushed by the managerial class, not the capitalist class. Both want to blame AI so its not clear they want to avoid doing so.

RTO is primarily pushed by the capitalist class, and managers are just stuck in the middle. No good manager wants pissed off employees, but managers who push back on the capitalist class do not stay managers long.

Re: What if remote working, not AI, is to blame for weak junior hiring?

#58

Post by MontyCarloHall »

antoinealb wrote: post #26
Negitivefrags wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The way this position conforms to the interests of the capital class, and conflicts with those of the labor class, is a red flag. If being in the office conforms to the interest of the capital class, it implies that WFH is inherently less efficient. This is one of those things that I often find strange with work from home advocates. They seem to imply that business owners just want employees to suffer as a goal in…

That's not necessarily true, though. For instance, real estate investors have a lot to lose from vacant office space and therefore would benefit from RTO. I personally find that I enjoy in person collaboration but that should not mean we should universally force every team to come back to the office.

I never understood this argument. Most companies do not own their office buildings, but rather lease space from corporate landlords. It is in the best interest of these companies to dramatically reduce their lease burden via WFH. Why would a company totally unrelated to real estate investment act against its own self-interest just to prop up real estate investors?

Re: What if remote working, not AI, is to blame for weak junior hiring?

#59

Post by Aurornis »

Negitivefrags wrote: post #16
mattdeboard wrote: post #5

The way this position conforms to the interests of the capital class, and conflicts with those of the labor class, is a red flag. It simultaneously and conveniently: 1. takes the heat off AI blowback 2. synergizes perfectly with "RTO" mandates (to the extent this needed synergy to become A Widespread Thing) On that basis alone, I'll wait for further analysis. Edit: to be clear I'm no anti-AI holdout, and I actually d…

> The way this position conforms to the interests of the capital class, and conflicts with those of the labor class, is a red flag. If being in the office conforms to the interest of the capital class, it implies that WFH is inherently less efficient. This is one of those things that I often find strange with work from home advocates. They seem to imply that business owners just want employees to suffer as a goal in…

> This is one of those things that I often find strange with work from home advocates. They seem to imply that business owners just want employees to suffer as a goal in itself.

I've worked remote a lot and I'm a big fan. I find it hard to discuss WFH online because it's so hard to find people willing to discuss it honestly, including the challenges. The way it's talked about here and on sites like Reddit is as if WFH is perfect, works for everyone, and the only reason we can't have more of it is because companies are hell-bent on doing things against their self interests.

I'm in another forum where we have a subforum for managers to talk, and remote work problems are a perennial topic. A lot of people really don't handle it well. There are even managers in the group who would prefer to work from home, but they've moved their teams into the office at least 2-3 days per week because their 5 day WFH experiments didn't go well.

It's a hard topic. I find myself holding back from discussing it because anything other than 100% pro-WFH anti-manager comments will get a lot of drive-by downvotes.

Post reply on HN