Live data from Hacker News

Is remote work bad for the economy?

fractional.work

221–230 of 363 posts

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#221
post #154
post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently listened to a casual conversation between two women talking about their husbands WFH behaviour. The general undertone was: "Yes, he can now do this or that time-consuming hobby because he can claim WFH while actually driving from A to B". Just an anecdote, I know, but this is not the first time I overheard people cheering over the personal advantages of WFH.

Those gentlemen would probably also waste time in an office environment. You're just substituting wasting time at work with wasting time at work (from home). In the office I work in, walking past anybody's desk you see procrastination window and tabs quickly disappear. Either that, or people don't even bother hiding it (except from management). If people working from home didn't manage the same workload at home, it w…

>Those gentlemen would probably also waste time in an office environment. You're just substituting wasting time at work with wasting time at work (from home).

There's way more distractions at home and not everyone can handle it. It's just wild what people find appropriate to do during meetings that they're supposed to be paying attention to. In office yeah maybe someone would read emails but you wouldn't be fully immersed in doing something else like cooking a full meal.

It's hard to say how much my coworkers actually work. But I strongly suspect that it's much less than in office. Yeah people would pop over to Reddit or whatever. But that's far less engaging then going anywhere you want or doing anything you want. Feel like for most people if you're stuck in the office you might as well do some work.

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big metros are more efficient (dollar-wise) and have a lower environmental impact than small towns. Small towns, in the US, are already subsidized by big towns, at least economically.

Big cities are dependent on agriculture and raw materials from rural regions for their survival. The small town can exist without the big city, the reversal is not true. As always through history, politicians and bankers plunder the country with taxes and interest. This wealth is then distributed by them, from the big cities, but that doesn't mean that the wealth originated there.

Most small towns where remote workers might settle are not driven by agriculture. Agriculture matters, but we don't live in an economy where everything outside of metro areas is just farms as far as the eye can see.

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll argue it's not and that the better alternative would be to have your own chosen days off. I've just started a new job for an enterprise company. It is proving insanely hard getting in contact with folk. Myself having to introduce myself every-time. Trying to find someone to give me basic mentoring, even trying to understand the hierarchy. Not only does communications break down over email, messenger, people get…

>It is proving insanely hard getting in contact with folk. Can you call them on the phone?

Sure, when they're not in some meeting, or marked online and not actually there. To ask questions is a pain having to ring them constantly after ending the previous call.

Sure. one could argue that this would happen in the office too but at least you can grab their attention easier.

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on who you are shaming. The whole "ZOMG stop eating avocado toast and buy a house already" thing directed at young people is disgusting.

I think there is some truth to that. My parents went to eat out like once a year for quite a while. They saved as much as they could and succeeded at that.

Let's say you and your partner go out to each weekly and spend $100 per dinner. That's $5,000 a year. Cutting this entirely lets you have a loan a little less than $100,000 larger at a 6% rate.

This is a case of eating out a lot, cutting it entirely and the effect doesn't even cover the amount a typical home has appreciated by in the past five years.

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Working less is the purpose of the economy.

This is a scorching-hot take. Would you care to elaborate?

That's easy. We work to get stuff. The better the economy, the more stuff we get for less work input. The ideal that we're slowly getting asymptotically closer to is a world where we get everything for no work at all.

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#226
post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big metros are more efficient (dollar-wise) and have a lower environmental impact than small towns. Small towns, in the US, are already subsidized by big towns, at least economically.

Subsidised by more than the effect of the employee living, eating, and being entertained there? And that doesn't account for GP's immigrant case at all.

Suburbs are economically insolvent, dense cities aren’t. That’s the case for basically every suburb and dense downtown in the US.

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#227

This applies everywhere: just because a job or business has existed does not mean it has a right to exist forever. This is not being harsh on people; it's just a reality. The blacksmiths in the horse and buggy days saw demand for their services fall when time and technologies changed. The coal miners began losing their jobs when we realized that coal as fuel was more harmful than it was beneficial. History is full of…

What if the government helped people switch jobs after they're made redundant?

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#228
Broken window fallacy + slippery slope fallacy

I wonder why we never see slippery slope arguments about unaffordable housing.

Even if remote work is bad for the economy - its good to have the option and to not enforce it on people who don't need to do it.

It relieves pressure on roads. It gives people time back they lost in commutes. If people insulate their homes properly - it will lower carbon emissions. It relieves rent pressures in the city.

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#229
post #89

This applies everywhere: just because a job or business has existed does not mean it has a right to exist forever. This is not being harsh on people; it's just a reality. The blacksmiths in the horse and buggy days saw demand for their services fall when time and technologies changed. The coal miners began losing their jobs when we realized that coal as fuel was more harmful than it was beneficial. History is full of…

> This obviously is a financial loss for the economy it's not, because the money that was otherwise spent (wasted) can now be deployed else where. Otherwise, why not increase the GDP and economy, by periodically just breaking every window? The replacement is gonna cause huge growth!

The argument I hear mostly from the ‘remote work is bad’ crowd is that there is highly valuable intangible benefit to collaboration in real life than collaboration remotely.

I can get behind the idea that remote work is not as effective especially when forming a new team or assimilating new team members. However the thing that the ‘remote work is bad’ crowd get wrong is the distribution of collaborative work and deep individual work.

My experience is that in person collaborative synchronization is needed far less than even once a week. In person touch points with a white board and plenty of getting to know each other as humans time is super valuable… and in my opinion 2-4 times a year in needed, not 3-5 days per week.

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe within a city, but people are not moving to another town/city to get access to a good school. The primary factor for people moving somewhere is still jobs. If that wasn't the case why will these people move out of the place which made them this capable?

In the US schools are hyperlocal. So a job might bring someone to the general area, but the school system makes them buy in given locality in the area.

That is what I was trying to say. Schools are the second priority. This leads to more taxes for places with better jobs. Sure you will maybe choose a given area for the schools, but that area is limited to drivable distance from work. Work comes first, schools second.
Post reply on HN