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

We Can't Let People Work from Home, for Stupid Reasons

blog.davidtate.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 226 posts

Re: We Can't Let People Work from Home, for Stupid Reasons

#191

Post by closeparen »

kelnos wrote: post #183
closeparen wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be open to a remote working arrangement that was truly asocial. The problem is you still want all the normal social features of working relationships - meetings, collaboration, mentorship, collective commitment and sacrifice towards a shared vision - in a remote context. The imitation of a team over Zoom carries, for me, all of the costs (higher costs, even) but none of the benefits. Empty calories. From my e…

> From my end it's you, prospective remote colleague, selfishly offering a raw deal. This just strikes me as not at all the same thing. People wanting to work from home does not remove the world of office work from your list of options. Depending on how extreme your particular company wants to go with remote work, yes, that might mean you'll have to find a different job to get the office experience. But that's the br…

There is no option for those of us in office to have the experience we're looking for, when you have the "flexibility" to be a stranger 1,000 miles away but retain the right to be included and treated the same way as everyone else.

It's absolutely astounding that you'd use a phrase like "that's the breaks" about a radical new change you're proposing while not realizing how it applies to something as baseline for adulthood as commuting.

Re: We Can't Let People Work from Home, for Stupid Reasons

#192

Post by kelnos »

vladvasiliu wrote: post #113
luckydata wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, but kids are going back to school. The "i'm lonely" part is an effect of how bad US cities are for social interaction. I guarantee you if you live in a European city you're not starved for social interaction, you can go to your neighborhood watering hole, or square, and meet with your actual friends anytime.

There might be something to that, but I think you still have to actually get to the watering hole / square / etc. Many people complain about there being no more boundaries when WFH, working all the time, etc. I think the issue is more psychological than purely logistical. I live in Paris, where you can easily find a watering hole within walking distance [0], yet I used to hear this same sentiment from colleagues even…

> There might be something to that, but I think you still have to actually get to the watering hole / square / etc.

And this is why suburbs and "bedroom communities" suck. If you spend all your time either at home with your nuclear family, or at the office with your colleagues, my feeling is that you don't really have a healthy social life.

As much as people shit on San Francisco for its lack of density in many areas, I can easily meet up with a friend after work at a nearby bar or restaurant or park. I just did that last week and it was wonderful to be able to do that again after all the pandemic restrictions.

> I think the issue is more psychological than purely logistical.

I agree with that, and that's actually encouraging. It means that there actually is no real-world issue with this, and the issues in our heads can be fixed. People can learn to develop better boundaries while working from home, and train themselves to seek social interaction outside of work better. And also come to realize that social interaction at the office isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to be.

Beyond that, any feeling about WFH related to social interaction that has developed during the pandemic is immediately suspect. WFH without the pandemic will look a lot different, and a lot healthier.

Re: We Can't Let People Work from Home, for Stupid Reasons

#193

Post by andrewflnr »

aisle wrote: post #57
andrewflnr wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is something that society can adjust to and be better off for it. People would have to be more intentional about meeting new people (seeking out meetups or whatever), but the results are likely to be better.

And intentional about exercising (as opposed to walking to BART or even directly to work for 20 mins), and intentional about eating right (instead of hopping over to Mixt Greens for a complex and healthy salad). And intentional about their work area actually being healthy (adequate sun exposure, free of radon in the case of a basement office). On and on and on. There is no way to guarantee all of this stuff for remot…

You mean people will have to take more responsibility for all aspects of their lives, without an employer helping them? You've convinced me, that's an unacceptable outcome, let's shove everyone back in offices.

Sarcasm aside, this was already my situation before the pandemic, just due to not making real friends at work. It takes work, but not that much. Each individual is ultimately responsible for their wellbeing, because they're the only ones who can be. Any help from their employer (if they even have one, e.g. not a freelancer) is a bonus.

Re: We Can't Let People Work from Home, for Stupid Reasons

#194

Post by closeparen »

kelnos wrote: post #187
closeparen wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spreading child-supervision duties around the extended family and community so parents can do other things besides be with their children 24x7 has been a feature of many human cultures for many thousands of years.

Right, but the times they are a'changin', and many people don't live within reasonable distance of extended family anymore. We can throw up our hands and either say a) stop moving away from your extended family, b) deal with the struggle, or c) don't have kids. Or we can use our big brains and try to figure out a better way for everyone to live where/how they want, but also be able to raise kids in a loving, supporti…

There's a huge space of professional and community childcare options other than "extended family" and "don't have kids". That the dual-income middle class has been using for decades.

Re: We Can't Let People Work from Home, for Stupid Reasons

#195

Post by kelnos »

wayoutthere wrote: post #36
lastofthemojito wrote: post #12

I think a lot of the responses to the straw man's questions are reasonable and thoughtful. But I think this sentiment: >I don't want to change the way I work, I just want people to join me in the office. My kids are driving me crazy. Is it weird to say I'm lonely; I miss my office friends. Deserves more respect. There are lot of types of people out there, and it seems like at least some of them are energized by being…

So I think this expectation that work provide social connection only works for some people. I like the people I work with, but I have no need to spend time with them in person because I have other social outlets . If I have to participate in another social scene because someone I work with is lonely, that’s gas out of my tank to solve their problem. I don’t really have a lot in common with my coworkers except we work…

This is the thing that really annoys me, the suggestion that I have an obligation to solve the personal-interaction needs of my co-workers.

I have become genuine non-work friends with some (former and current) co-workers. But there are many with whom I have no interest in being friends, or even talking to them for one second more than is necessary for us to get our jobs done, and that's ok. I shouldn't be forced to fulfill their social needs; that's their job to do on their own time.

Re: We Can't Let People Work from Home, for Stupid Reasons

#196

Post by kelnos »

jonny_eh wrote: post #47
dilippkumar wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't want to change the way I work I understand. > I just want people to join me in the office. Not cool, don’t make me change my lifestyle. > My kids are driving me crazy. I understand. > Is it weird to say I'm lonely; I understand. > I miss my office friends. I understand.

> > I just want people to join me in the office. > Not cool, don’t make me change my lifestyle. Having everyone work at home also changes my lifestyle. There's no way to make everyone happy.

Gah, I keep reading this over and over and it's so straw-man infuriating. No one is saying "shut down all offices". Half of the company working from home every day of the week does not preclude the other half from working from an office. We can all actually get what we want here; let's stop pretending this is an us vs. them fight.

Re: We Can't Let People Work from Home, for Stupid Reasons

#197

Post by pseudalopex »

Pet_Ant wrote: post #35
andrewflnr wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is something that society can adjust to and be better off for it. People would have to be more intentional about meeting new people (seeking out meetups or whatever), but the results are likely to be better.

I find people just want to drink at home alone and watch Netflix. Good friends I had unworn for 20-odd years. WFH I imagine many will drink themselves to an early grave.

In my experience most people who just want to drink at home and watch Netflix do it because the commute and the office drain them.

Re: We Can't Let People Work from Home, for Stupid Reasons

#198

Post by jonny_eh »

kelnos wrote: post #196
jonny_eh wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > I just want people to join me in the office. > Not cool, don’t make me change my lifestyle. Having everyone work at home also changes my lifestyle. There's no way to make everyone happy.

Gah, I keep reading this over and over and it's so straw-man infuriating. No one is saying "shut down all offices". Half of the company working from home every day of the week does not preclude the other half from working from an office. We can all actually get what we want here; let's stop pretending this is an us vs. them fight.

I can't work with you in the office if you're not in the office.

Re: We Can't Let People Work from Home, for Stupid Reasons

#199

Post by cratermoon »

jfrunyon wrote: post #144
cratermoon wrote: post #118

I do feel sympathetic to the families with two working parents and kids in school when the Inside Times came upon us. Some don't have a dedicated office space at all, those that do often don't have it set up for two people to work (dueling Zoom meetings are a problem). Most people in the US can't afford or even get enough bandwidth to support two simultaneous video conferences, much less three or more if there are ki…

> Most people in the US can't afford or even get enough bandwidth to support two simultaneous video conferences ?!?! How much bandwidth do you think it takes??? Zoom requirements: For group video calling: For 1080p HD video: 3.8Mbps/3.0Mbps (up/down) (Of course, most people probably don't even have 1080p webcams...)

It's not the download speed that's the problem, it's the upload.

For one person, the FCC definition[1] of "broadband" speeds of 3MB/s up are barely sufficient. The are lots of places that barely break that. Now get both parents and the kid, there are plenty of folks who can't do it[2]. Sure, they could watch, but they'd have to have their video off. Better hope that some program doesn't try to download an update.

We're all a bunch of relatively well-paid nerds here on HN, so we have better-than-average internet speeds. I'm still betting there's a portion of us living in the 'burbs who would struggle streaming more than 2 video conferences.

1 https://www.engadget.com/senators-fcc-change-definition-high...

2 https://www.speedtest.net/global-index/united-states

Re: We Can't Let People Work from Home, for Stupid Reasons

#200

Post by acuozzo »

jfrunyon wrote: post #144
cratermoon wrote: post #118

I do feel sympathetic to the families with two working parents and kids in school when the Inside Times came upon us. Some don't have a dedicated office space at all, those that do often don't have it set up for two people to work (dueling Zoom meetings are a problem). Most people in the US can't afford or even get enough bandwidth to support two simultaneous video conferences, much less three or more if there are ki…

> Most people in the US can't afford or even get enough bandwidth to support two simultaneous video conferences ?!?! How much bandwidth do you think it takes??? Zoom requirements: For group video calling: For 1080p HD video: 3.8Mbps/3.0Mbps (up/down) (Of course, most people probably don't even have 1080p webcams...)

> ?!?! How much bandwidth do you think it takes???

I'm not OP, but latency matters more than bandwidth in this case.

More specifically, the variance of latency matters. It's easy to grow accustomed to a constant 500ms delay, but it's incredibly difficult to deal with the random delays you get when you put a packet-switched network atop a high latency physical layer.

Post reply on HN