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

Is remote work bad for the economy?

fractional.work

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 363 posts

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#281

Post by edude03 »

rubyfan wrote: post #229
chii wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It heavily depends on what kind of work you do and your relation to others though - if most of your work is deep work done by yourself of course less time interesting with others makes sense but if you're a team lead for example...

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#282

Post by bluGill »

carlosjobim wrote: post #247
UncleMeat wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not saying it's only agriculture, but rural areas give much more to urban areas than they receive back, evident by the massive waste and corruption within the cities and the throngs of people being sustained in the cities without producing anything of value or anything at all. In the past you could certainly say that urban areas give back just as much or even more, when factories where concentrated in cities. Tod…

In poor 'African' farming communities this is true. In any even slightly developed country the farms are not self sufficient: they focus on a cash crop and go to town to buy things that they don't grow. Sure any rural farm could be self sufficient, but division of labor makes them far more efficient - at the expensive of needing the city to provide all the logistics that make it possible for them to get things they don't or can't grow (can't meaning something that doesn't grow in their climate, while don't means they could grow it but they do not).

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#283

Post by kibwen »

carlosjobim wrote: post #247
UncleMeat wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not saying it's only agriculture, but rural areas give much more to urban areas than they receive back, evident by the massive waste and corruption within the cities and the throngs of people being sustained in the cities without producing anything of value or anything at all. In the past you could certainly say that urban areas give back just as much or even more, when factories where concentrated in cities. Tod…

> evident by the massive waste and corruption within the cities and the throngs of people being sustained in the cities without producing anything of value or anything at all.

Where on earth did you get this impression? I have lived in both small rural towns and large cities, and this is hogwash.

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#284

Post by FredPret »

wildrhythms wrote: post #237
Tade0 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I started working remotely in late 2015 and when I first stepped into the office after some months of this it struck me as insane that we expend all these resources just to have people in particular places, at particular times, producing massive traffic in the process. It bothers me that it took a pandemic for companies to embrace remote work.

...and yet the people in charge of those companies are starting to revert back to 'the good old days' of making everybody commute sometimes hours to sit at a (generally worse) workspace to do the work. It's maddening to me.

It’s like they want to enforce letter writing after the invention of email, or horse-drawn carriages instead of cars, or in-person work instead of videoconferencing from anywhere.

All because of some romantic notion about some essential element being lost.

The beauty of capitalism is that competition will either replace those people, or eventually the companies entirely.

Luckily this stance makes it very easy to identify and isolate the old guard. I should add that some kinds of engineering has to be on site due to it revolving around rockets or factories or mines or construction sites. But for IT, huge red flag. I’ve had so many offers to work on site and now I don’t even have to bother researching those clients.

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#285

Post by blub »

michaelteter wrote: post #74

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…

The pro remote work viewpoints on HN seem like experienced developers, probably with families, often with terrible commutes externalizing the costs of what’s apparently good for them personally to their colleagues and peers:

* removing an outlet for socializing for people that are new to the area / country and don’t have friends.

* lack of face to face team bonding for new employees.

* lack of personal social contact for an activity we typically spend 1/3 of our day on.

* reduced ability to learn by absorbing what happens around oneself.

* higher competition for junior and mid-career positions from other countries.

New employees, particularly at the beginning of their careers are disproportionately negatively affected by remote work. And while many of the disadvantages I’ve mentioned above can be mitigated, remote work nudges all these aspects towards the negative. These nudges when applied at large scale add up.

Like anything, remote work has downsides which are often downplayed by those with an interest to gain an advantage for themselves.

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#286

Post by amanaplanacanal »

lelanthran wrote: post #201
geysersam wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The purpose of the economy is to fulfill human desires. The only question we have to ask to understand which situation resulted in higher economic output is: which situation resulted in satisfying more human desires. It's clear that the pointless burning of fossil fuels didn't satisfy any human need. Then the question becomes: is the distribution of currency caused by the buying and burning of the fuels preferable to…

> It's clear that the pointless burning of fossil fuels didn't satisfy any human need. Yeah, but ... how much of it was pointless? Who decides if a use-case is pointless? You? Me? The government?

If the same work gets done without the burning, I’d say yes, it’s pointless.

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#287

Post by watwut »

carlosjobim wrote: post #213
watwut wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It heavily depends on which army you are joining and what cause they fight for. Joining army can be step towards supporting atrocities and it can be step towards preventing them. Just like with joining police - in some places it is good thing to do. In others, you are joining another criminal organization.

>Joining army can be step towards supporting atrocities and it can be step towards preventing them. Joining a war will always be supporting atrocities committed by your side, while preventing atrocities committed by the enemy.

Yeah, there was no difference between joining SS and resistance or American army. Or, between fighting against invading army (like Russia) and being invader.

Everything is always the same.

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#288

Post by doublerabbit »

atraac wrote: post #253
doublerabbit wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And there the typical 35 year aggressive attitude I have to deal with daily. Your joking right in thinking that no communication is loss via email? Team, zoom meetings take away facial expressions and as someone with social blindness it makes my job harder to engage. Why so hostile? As from what I see the culture here, the prosperity that they give has been one of the I best fitted environments I've worked in. Very s…

> And there the typical 35 year aggressive attitude I have to deal with daily. I'm actually 29 but sure. > Your joking right in thinking that no communication is loss via email? I would argue that more details are actually _preserved_ when communicating via email rather than face to face. If you cannot properly communicate via written text then yeah, of course any kind of written channel will be worse. I actually lik…

Good for you. This is really moot.

29, the age fits the angst..

I'm not saying WFH is bad. It should be allowed, but I disagree that it should not be a full working week. To those who prefer to work in the office, who communicate better in the office. Should be taken in to consideration. Sorry that my brain operates differently to yours.

When you start to throw personal insults, "ITS A YOU" problem those make your points very weak and blind sided. If I have a problem, I fix it but the problem isn't me.

We both have different jobs, it works for you and going in to the office for me. Which is what I do. Hobbies outside work? I have plenty.

Your angry, and I don't know why, you sure your not an disgruntled 35 year old? I'm disgruntled at 33.

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#289

Post by svsaraf »

michaelteter wrote: post #74

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…

(I wrote the article)

Thanks for this comment - I think the economic point is spot on. I think the fear of losing control is a fair summary - unfortunately there is some evidence of a selection effect that might mean employers do have something to fear. https://www.fractional.work/p/showing-face-is-more-important...

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#290

Post by twh270 »

We need to get rid of "what's good for the economy" (aka corporate revenue/profits and high employment) as the sole yardstick for making policy decisions. It is very, very clearly not working.

The economy should exist for (benefit) as many as possible. This doesn't mean tearing down the entirety of the existing system, but some changes are clearly needed.

Even if remote work does end up being less than optimal for the economy, the benefits to many/most remote employees in work/life balance, health, and family life is easily worth it.

Post reply on HN