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

Remote work doesn't seem to affect productivity, Fed study finds

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 597 posts

Re: Remote work doesn't seem to affect productivity, Fed study finds

#281

Post by bdw5204 »

pigbearpig wrote: post #275
oneplane wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they would be referred to as 'suckers' because they are spending time for their employer for which they are not compensated in that scenario (two options, both pay the same, but one requires you to sacrifice significant portions of your day for no compensation).

Bill might like a long commute as much as Gladys likes to work from home. Hard to call Bill a sucker in that case.

The only reason I can imagine that somebody would genuinely like a long commute would be if they hate their home life and are trying to escape from it. They'd probably be better off just getting a divorce instead.

Re: Remote work doesn't seem to affect productivity, Fed study finds

#282

Post by jen20 »

lumb63 wrote: post #280
jen20 wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like a self-discipline problem.

What’s wrong with incorporating exercise into one’s lifestyle, without dedicated exercise time? It’s convenient and sustainable. Sure, it’s not as good as dedicated exercise time in terms of the adaptations one would get, but it’s much better than the adaptations they’d get on their couch.

Nothing is wrong with that - it's the issue of attempting to impose it on others which is objectionable.

Re: Remote work doesn't seem to affect productivity, Fed study finds

#283

Post by bluefirebrand »

raxxorraxor wrote: post #257
jen20 wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better coffee is definitely situational, especially if your employer buys over roasted beans.

I have good coffee at home but my boss is a fanatical addict that considers bad coffee a mortal sin.

It sounds like you're lucky to have that boss if you really enjoy coffee. I would wager most bosses are fanatical cheapskates that consider expensive coffee an unnecessary cost

Re: Remote work doesn't seem to affect productivity, Fed study finds

#284

Post by RGamma »

Mordisquitos wrote: post #162
Levitz wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming that there are no differences in productivity, working on-site is borderline morally evil. It's unhealthier (loads of sleep deprivation out there), it's bad for the environment and its costs are higher. We can argue all day if the perks of in-person work are worth the cost, but if there aren't any perks besides "I just prefer it that way" I don't think there is even a valid discussion to have. We are talking…

Assuming that there are no differences in productivity, working remotely is borderline morally evil. It's unhealthier (loneliness, lack of work/life separation, physical inactivity), it's bad for the environment (climate control of a 100-people office is less energy intensive than that of 100 individual homes), and its costs are imposed on the worker rather than the business. To be clear, I don't honestly believe the…

GP implicitly assumed a large portion of cost is commute by car beside the general time/happiness cost.

For one, one would need to look into how many car commutes are avoidable to more precisely quantify the species-level irrationality of fossil-powered forced cramming of office towers inside cities day-in-and-out.

I'm sure it's all been done...

Re: Remote work doesn't seem to affect productivity, Fed study finds

#285

Post by jimmydddd »

pigbearpig wrote: post #275
oneplane wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they would be referred to as 'suckers' because they are spending time for their employer for which they are not compensated in that scenario (two options, both pay the same, but one requires you to sacrifice significant portions of your day for no compensation).

Bill might like a long commute as much as Gladys likes to work from home. Hard to call Bill a sucker in that case.

I've been WFH for 15 years and love it. My wife has been WFH for 3 years. While I do prefer WFH, I think there were benefits to us being apart during the work day and then catching up at dinner/evening. There are some downsides to being together 24/7, even in a good relationship.

Re: Remote work doesn't seem to affect productivity, Fed study finds

#286

Post by julianozen »

bdw5204 wrote: post #278
intended wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would add one major change that the work from home experiment has achieved - its made the opportunity cost of the work commute clear. This is a time cost paid for by the worker. As you stated, this is variable. If you have a short commute, or you like it, or you get some exercise - office is great. If you hate your commute, if its 3 hours in pollution and traffic - not so much. Earlier the position was that WFH was…

The solution to that problem is to count the travel time and any required breaks as part of work hours while also reimbursing all travel expenses. That would require employers to pay the full cost of unnecessary in-person work on both ends and would strongly disincentivize them from doing it. Employers reimbursing your travel expenses if they need you to travel to a conference on the other side of the country is alre…

I would argue this is implicitly paid in salary differences

Re: Remote work doesn't seem to affect productivity, Fed study finds

#287

Post by hiatus »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #160
safety1st wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but then we're discussing remote work as an employee benefit, which is a different discussion driven by a different part of the company etc. Not as a thing which improves the company's bottom line which is where C suite and shareholders spend the vast majority of their attention. If it doesn't improve job productivity then at the level where decisions get made I can think of two really significant points regard…

A. This doesn't happen because many C-suite people have commercial property investments. B. Language issues, cultural issues, and time zone issues all have negative effects. C. Or it could mean labour is more productive because it has more free time and is less stressed. There's no pointless commute and some chores can be done in the background. Getting slightly distracted by laundry is far less of a loss to producti…

> This doesn't happen because many C-suite people have commercial property investments

I keep reading this but have seen no evidence. Are you saying executives are invested in the buildings their companies occupy?

Re: Remote work doesn't seem to affect productivity, Fed study finds

#288

Post by julianozen »

blagie wrote: post #176
epolanski wrote: post #173

The fundamental issue I see in this debate is a lack of sensibility and nuance in human nature. The whole matter is debated (understandably in a way) on big numbers and averages. I could write a long post but I'll cut it short to this paragraph stating that humans differ. For some commuting is stressful, the offices are noisy and full of distractions and those individuals may thrive in a remote setup. There's people…

This is my experience. My productivity on coding is a lot hire remote. On many leadership / management-style tasks, it's a lot lower. Come to think of it, I'm wondering if that's where the split comes in. Upper management sees their productivity go down -- on what's fundamentally an interpersonal endeavour -- while individual contributors see theirs go up -- on what's primarily solitary ones. As a result, there is fr…

I agree with this

Re: Remote work doesn't seem to affect productivity, Fed study finds

#289

Post by justneedaname »

bdw5204 wrote: post #278
intended wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would add one major change that the work from home experiment has achieved - its made the opportunity cost of the work commute clear. This is a time cost paid for by the worker. As you stated, this is variable. If you have a short commute, or you like it, or you get some exercise - office is great. If you hate your commute, if its 3 hours in pollution and traffic - not so much. Earlier the position was that WFH was…

The solution to that problem is to count the travel time and any required breaks as part of work hours while also reimbursing all travel expenses. That would require employers to pay the full cost of unnecessary in-person work on both ends and would strongly disincentivize them from doing it. Employers reimbursing your travel expenses if they need you to travel to a conference on the other side of the country is alre…

Not quite comparable though I would say, given that you know what you're signing up for when applying for a job. Travelling to a conference is a one-off whereas you'd be expecting to come to your job everyday (given the contract states this). You wouldn't accept a job in another country and turn round expecting them to pay for your flights, hotel etc. to be in the area during the work week

Re: Remote work doesn't seem to affect productivity, Fed study finds

#290

Post by pc86 »

oneplane wrote: post #263
miroljub wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why call people suckers? Maybe they don't mind commuting? Maybe their commute is only 15 minutes, and not 2.5 hours? > To be fair, leftover workers seem to stick around at a company for 10-20 years. Even if they were "leftovers", their value to the company they know in and out after 10 to 20 years and their productivity skyrockets compared to the A+ rock stars that left the company after one year.

I think they would be referred to as 'suckers' because they are spending time for their employer for which they are not compensated in that scenario (two options, both pay the same, but one requires you to sacrifice significant portions of your day for no compensation).

15 minutes is not significant.
Post reply on HN