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

331–340 of 363 posts

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#331

Post by sokoloff »

Steltek wrote: post #326
sokoloff wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that a "No True Suburb" argument?

Is Cambridge a suburb of Boston? You've also called out Watertown, Arlington, etc as modern American suburbs before but their density ranks well above major cities. But that's because they're not modern American suburbs. They're classical Streetcar Suburbs that predate the car and that's a very different thing.

IMO, there's zero doubt that Arlington and Watertown are suburbs of Boston by the most reasonable definitions of the word ("a. an outlying part of a city or town b. a smaller community adjacent to or within commuting distance of a city")

However, if you continue to object to calling them suburbs of Boston, then look at Carlisle, Dover, Lexington, Lincoln, Sherborn, Sudbury, Wellesley, Weston, Winchester, and on and on. None of those Boston suburbs are even hurting for money, let alone "insolvent".

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#332

Post by doublerabbit »

orwin wrote: post #325
doublerabbit wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 po…

I don't want to pile on you much, but I think both you and your team aren't equipped for remote work and could benefit from a better management and leadership. I changed job very recently, to a full remote team, it was the best onboarding of my life.

My team is fantastically equipped. The company provides, and after expressing my concerns in a team meeting today after I had posted my grunt, they acknowledge and couple of the seniors are going to come in a few times a day week to get me though the learning gap.

I am a contractor and have a large responsibility riding on this job. I am counting on being successful to get me to the next level in life, and the company. This is my major lifeline but I can't do it alone nor is WFH appropriate for the situation.

I'm under NDA so I can't say what. WFH is nice I understand. For those with kids, animals, distances. I fully get it. You should earn the privilege rather then have it handed to you on a plate. WFH is lazy.

It frustrates me, its new, its nice, its popular. Its just been thrown that everyone enjoys wfh. My feelings are that feel the 15years of working with older adults, in many jobs, learning the office ropes of each; that it will become a great shame that interpersonal social skills are going to end up lost to distant remote, communication.

Yes the office place could be better, WFH has it advantages but its not the holy grail. Its a silver bullet that bridges the gap for the time being.

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#333

Post by geysersam »

lelanthran wrote: post #307
geysersam wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it didn't satisfy anyones desire, it was pointless. Burning fossil fuels can of course also be meaningful. We're talking about driving to work when you can work from home.

> If it didn't satisfy anyones desire, it was pointless. I dunno. There's a lot of PHBs who have petty tyrant syndrome. They desire their employees in the office. Then there's a lot of people in the CBD who desire to continue selling their wares to the people working in the CBD. There's letting companies who desire income from the letting arrangements, landlords who desire income enough to pay the city tax ... On the…

I don't agree. It's totally fair to disqualify some desires as less important than others. I think we all agree that a tyrants desire to be a tyrant isn't worth taking into consideration.

Someone selling wares don't usually desire selling wares. They desire income. Everybody wants income. Buying something we don't want/need is waste + redistribution of currency.

Redistribution of currency is a zero sum game unless we have some reason to particularly value the desires of the ones receiving. I don't see why we should particularly value the desires of landlords.

> I just don't think it's a good exercise to justify anything based on what people desire.

What alternative do you propose?

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#334

Post by naasking »

gepardi wrote: post #66

Remote work is great for: - People who want more quality time with family - Environment. Less pollution. - Businesses who can save money by not needing an office. If “the economy” doesn’t like it, it needs to adapt. The economy should support people, not the other way around.

It's not so straightforward. Remote work encourages sprawl, which drives sprawl on infrastructure (sewage, water, electric grid, etc.), which can be considerably more costly and environmentally impactful than concentrated living in urban centres.

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#335

Post by doublerabbit »

SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #292
doublerabbit wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But how do you identify if the issue is with you or them? If its you, sure you could. But if it's them, how so you convince that they have a problem? Why would it be my problem, when I get on with other folk? I find that talking in person, allows me to express what I'm wanting to express clearly. Its hard, but easier. Why can't a compromise be made where you have three days off and then the two you come in? Why does…

Wel I mean, there are definitely jobs like that. Why not just take those? Let the people who want to be 100% remote just work at the jobs that are 100% remote, instead of working at a 100% remote job and wanting the workplace to change. I’m sympathetic that you mentioned having a disability (if social blindness is what you meant by this) but I’m unsure if making everyone you talk to commute into the office a reasonab…

I do. Hybird should be the way to go. Four day weeks. But its not easy just to find a job.

Thank you for your sympathy, it is a disability. I wouldn't want to force anyone to come in to the office. Folk have things going on in their life.

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#336

Post by watwut »

carlosjobim wrote: post #316
watwut wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Soldiers from both sides in every conflict will commit war crimes, including horrible war crimes. That's the grim reality and you can either accept it or put on propaganda blinders. Modern war is hell.

And yet, sone armies commit way more of them then others.

Some armies habe those attrocities as mandates, it is their job to commit genocide. Others don't. In some armies you have to participate in others don't.

It is just not true that it would all be the same. Complete pacifism is just enabling the biggest genocides that go on while congratulating yourself.

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#337

Post by amalgamated_inc »

chii wrote: post #89
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…

> 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!

> Otherwise, why not increase the GDP and economy, by periodically just breaking every window? The replacement is gonna cause huge growth!

Omg this is genius! Does Jerome Powell know about this?!

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#338

Post by carlosjobim »

watwut wrote: post #336
carlosjobim wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Soldiers from both sides in every conflict will commit war crimes, including horrible war crimes. That's the grim reality and you can either accept it or put on propaganda blinders. Modern war is hell.

And yet, sone armies commit way more of them then others. Some armies habe those attrocities as mandates, it is their job to commit genocide. Others don't. In some armies you have to participate in others don't. It is just not true that it would all be the same. Complete pacifism is just enabling the biggest genocides that go on while congratulating yourself.

"We're invading to defend the people against a brutal oppressor" is the argument always used. By Americans in WWII, by Russia today. Some of the worst war crimes and genocides in history have been committed systematically by the armies you've so far mentioned: Germany, America and Russia. These atrocities have been ordered from the highest leadership in these nations. Modern war is hell and there are no good guys left when it's over. If you believe that, they are recruiting volunteers.

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#339

Post by JohnFen »

carlosjobim wrote: post #317
bluGill wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if the alternative is bad. While it is true that most public transit in the US is bad, that doesn't mean it has to be that way.

It is impossible to build public transport that gives the same freedom of movement as a personal vehicle.

But that vast majority of the time, in the US, anyway, the car is used just to get to work and back, not people exercising "freedom of movement".

It seems to me it would be preferable to have mass transit for regular commuting, combined with perhaps some sort of rental system for those times when you need greater flexibility, or need to haul lots of stuff, etc.

Re: Is remote work bad for the economy?

#340

Post by s1artibartfast »

newswasboring wrote: post #314
s1artibartfast wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is the exact wrong direction. California moved to statewide funding parity for schools and voters simply decided they don't want to pay taxes that aren't local. This lead directly to capping property taxes in the state.

> California moved to statewide funding parity for schools and voters simply decided they don't want to pay taxes that aren't local. Was there a reason given by these people for this? Or was it just "I don't want to pay for someone else". Because that is the core issue with US politics. Everything will improve if that goes away.

That was the reason. Nobody wants to pay a high tax to support schools when only a small fraction of that goes to their children's local school.

Better to minimize the tax, have shitty public schools, and pay for private schools.

It makes sense from a certain perspective.

It was essentially the no child left behind policy for schools. No public schools are allowed to be better funded than the worst schools, so people look for alternatives to the system.

Post reply on HN