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

311–320 of 597 posts

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

#311

Post by sokoloff »

LightBug1 wrote: post #306

Jebus ... this is still being debated? Can we just acknowledge the complete an utter failure of managegment around this debate (I am management, btw) such that we can't settle this one fair and square. We all have expectations and results from individuals. It doesn't take a Fed study to answer the question around an employees productivity. Either it's better, the same, or worse. I'm all for remote and hybrid work. Ma…

My hypothesis is that the debate is difficult because of some mix of difficulty in precisely measuring productivity (which everyone can see) and in the mix of most tasks which work 100% fine remotely and some tasks that work better in-person ("the human thing").

(I'm also management and very much pro-remote.)

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

#312

Post by dboreham »

ponector wrote: post #179
realusername wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think a lot of people with an employee mindset just don't want to acknowledge the existence of B Because the outsourcing threat was a thing before remote working, remote working changes nothing to that. Employers love to bring this up on the subject of remote working but if they could outsource your work to an Indian paid 10x less, they would have done it already. Those employers are deluded if they think remote…

Outsourcing jobs and salaries exploded with COVID. 100k USD annual compensation is insane for many countries. You can get best people overseas for a fraction of US costs, and with no obligation attached to you by labor laws. I'm glad this happens so I can use geographic arbitrage: work for US client but live in nice place in Europe with reasonable costs of living.

> and with no obligation attached to you by labor laws.

I don't think this can be true. An employer has to follow labor laws pertaining to the country of residence of their employees. Typically some sort of legal entity has to be established in those countries.

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

#313

Post by coffeebeqn »

PhoenixReborn wrote: post #252
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…

Not just time cost, but also monetary cost. At least in tech, most jobs exist in a small set of metro areas where housing prices are incredibly high. Pushing for more remote work enables more flexibility in where people live / can ease some of the housing pressure on these congested metros.

And the housing in those cities scales terribly when you have kids. What might’ve been doable with 1 or 2 people traps you into very high rent or mortgage (+ even worse commute) to have room for a family. I moved out of the west coast - which I really liked as a place - to be closer to family and to pay 1/3 to 1/2 for the housing

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

#314

Post by dboreham »

Sparkyte wrote: post #14
SoftTalker wrote: post #2

Most employees can screw around websurfing or shopping just as well at work as at home. They mostly do it because they are bored. Give them interesting, meaningful work and they will be productive.

Water cooler chat used to be the big thing when I worked in an office.

Yes, but even 20+ years ago when I worked for a large Silicon Valley company: most of the people I interacted with were in different buildings so it was easier to email them than to go find them. Then we acquired a team in another country. When I went remote in 1999 one of the reasons I could justify that was that when I drove to the office every day I usually spent each day communicating by email and phone with colleagues.

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

#315

Post by Workaccount2 »

CalRobert wrote: post #129
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…

I love remote work but I don't know if I'd call it morally evil to have people on site. There's something to be said for being in the same physical space as your peers and the social bonds that form, etc. But the only way I commute now is by train and/or bike, most commutes to some godawful office park hellscape in San Jose are agony.

I see stories of people who have worked remote at a company for a year or so, and still have yet to see the faces of any of their coworkers. I get that dev work has a disproportionate amount of basement dwellers, but man, that is still so crazy to me.

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

#316

Post by DiggyJohnson »

hospitalJail wrote: post #233
vidarh wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

During my last job change I gave concrete numbers to recruiters on what getting me into an office would cost. In the end I ended up working remote, which is what I preferred, which wasn't surprising given how much the commuting time was worth to me.

For me it was: >Company A is 2.5 hours of drive time >Company B is remote Pay is the same. lol I imagine that Company A will find some sucker, but instead of getting A+ workers that can realize company B> company A, they are going to get the leftover workers, their second choice. To be fair, leftover workers seem to stick around at a company for 10-20 years.

Would I be a sucker if I have a 12 minute commute and prefer going into the office with my teammates?

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

#317

Post by pawelwentpawel »

vidarh wrote: post #225
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…

During my last job change I gave concrete numbers to recruiters on what getting me into an office would cost. In the end I ended up working remote, which is what I preferred, which wasn't surprising given how much the commuting time was worth to me.

Once you add those numbers, the total is usually insane. While I do miss being in the office sometimes (mostly for the social life), it's just too expensive for me as a worker right now. It's not just the time spent on commute, it's also the money that you have to spend to stay within a commutable distance from the office.

Also, my profession is being a Software Engineer, not a train passenger.

I made a calculator for this a while ago: https://flat.social/blog/get-a-remote-team-back-in-the-offic... (scroll a bit down for the inputs).

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

#318

Post by DiggyJohnson »

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…

Wouldn't this subsidize other's to live further away from work? I think this might have up having unintended negative externalities. It doesn't seem "fair", because I could get paid more for living further away (assuming I'm compensated for commuting time beyond just the cost of depreciation, gas, and maintenance).

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

#319

Post by rTX5CMRXIfFG »

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…

I hope it's OK to dissent here since all the other comments agree with you anyway. Regarding this:

> 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.

If statistics is invalid, then how do you propose companies decide, based on a reasonable and empirical estimate of reality, on what work arrangement to implement? Do you believe that it is not expensive and disruptive to introduce as many variations of work setups as there are people in a company? What if the people deciding company policy simply prefer and believe in the advantages of onsite, which they have the freedom and right to believe---so why do people who prefer remote force themselves in such places?

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

#320

Post by [deleted] »

wegfawefgawefg wrote: post #250
mlrtime wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I definitely agree here. For most of my career I was fortunate enough to not have a "real" commute. at most a 20 min walk to the office. The worse commute is when it was raining or snowing. The problem becomes now my home is tied to my work place. If the company moves or I change companies, I have move or stress at a new commute. I did move once during a job change, and it didn't last long. Another compounding issue…

I cant find a company that doesnt implode in less than a year. Edit: Subcontractor at bp. Opec crunch. entire floor fired. Hardware startup, unexpected giant bill overnight. Layoffs. Fullstack webshop, sales didnt land. Crypto finance gig, asset prices crashed, clients all went broke instantly. Sometimes thats just how it is.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN