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

471–480 of 597 posts

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

#471

Post by DiggyJohnson »

chatmasta wrote: post #469
nine_k wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BTW this is where commute by public transport shines. My 30 minutes to the office are my dedicated reading time, an hour a day. If instead I had to drive, that would be lost time, because paying enough attention to the book distracts enough from driving to add unnecessary risk.

It shines when comparing to commute by private transport, but not so much when comparing it to no commute at all. If you didn't have a commute to the office, you would still have an hour to do your reading, but you could do it in bed, or in a coffee shop, or in your kitchen, or on a walk...

I find that a reason to leave the house and be a part of the hustle and bustle is fundamentally good for my energy and mental health. I bet I wouldn't read in the morning as much if I didn't have that commute.

This is very subjective, as well as personal and irrational, but I find it to be true. I benefit from having a reason to go out into the world in the morning. WFH and the freedom to go to the coffeeshop or take a walk didn't match up.

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

#472

Post by chatmasta »

dgfitz wrote: post #426
pawelwentpawel wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fo…

> You spend around 8 hours on travel weekly which amounts to around 45 days of full-time work per year and will sum up to 450 days of full-time work (3600 hours) over 10 years. It's 4 years of full-time work days (9000 hours!) over 25 years. Kind of wish I hadn't looked... :(

And if you're driving to the office, that's 450 hours where you can get into a fatal accident, with about half of them in the morning when you might be too sleep-deprived to safely operate a motor vehicle. Driving on four hours of sleep is the equivalent of drunk driving. And if your start time is the same every day, then it's likely you'll have many nights where you fall asleep too late, maybe even because you're preparing a presentation for your morning meeting...

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

#473

Post by wharvle »

steveBK123 wrote: post #467
wharvle wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, remote takes already-inefficient and error-prone workplace communication cultures that manage to muddle by with in-office workers at "merely" a significant productivity cost, and makes it totally unworkable. The obvious solution is to fix your very-noticeably fucked up communication culture, since that would also improve in-person work. Some orgs and managers seem to have decided, comically incorrec…

You mean having 3 layers of management do a drive-by at developer desks in the space of a day, with conflicting asks is bad? Or having the universe revolve around Jira, berating devs for lack of story progress in standup, and shouting about velocity in sprint ceremonies.. while also doing the above said verbal drive-bys? Who is causing all this churn?? Where is our focus? Where are people spending their time?? It's u…

I sometimes wonder if all the time spent inputing and tracking various not-naturally-generated "metrics" is worth it. Manager and executive hours analyzing this stuff and devising systems for it and arguing over which systems to use and crafting mandates and plans, can be extremely expensive. Expensive ICs like programmers can easily lose 10-20% of their time to task-tracking and time-tracking and shepherding various things along that only exist for better tracking. Like, if we just didn't do those things at all... would productivity go down? Or up?

The cost of doing all this measuring and evaluating and preparing-to-measure certainly isn't being measured, though, so we'll never know.

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

#475

Post by reducesuffering »

2d8a875f-39a2-4 wrote: post #299
reducesuffering wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FAANG are the best case scenario for your argument, with billion dollar real estate portfolios and more RTO-heavy. Just because this study reached a conclusion doesn’t mean that it’s the same conclusion other companies’ reach. Especially when those companies’ have their bottom line at stake, “skin in the game.” Again, by what plausible incentive do you think non-FAANG companies, with tiny real estate assets, usually…

I admit I was being a bit flippant. But there's a case to be made from the "same people owning all the companies" argument that the investors in all these tech companies are also invested in commercial real estate returns. So basically it's Larry Fink who wants you back in the office, and hey he owns your co so the board will listen to him (being flippant again here).

Larry Fink and BlackRock don’t own the 6% of Google managed by BlackRock index funds. Nor does Google or other co’s decide to make adverse decisions to their morale and productivity because of a very minority shareholder. What you’re describing is conspiracy theory.

Occam’s razor. These co’s came to the same conclusion co’s like OpenAI did, that in persons benefits outweighed the negatives. Only when the conclusions don’t agree with the preferences people like you have, that the cope, conspiracy, and rationalizing come out. Also, what may be good for the individual, doesn’t mean it’s good for the org.

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

#476

Post by flkiwi »

user3939382 wrote: post #298
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 agree in general except on this > workload splitting where syncing isn't very important I'm not convinced that remote means syncing is harder. There is a case to be made that: it's easier because it compels teams to have a structure for syncing, and structured syncing may be more efficient than ad hoc. Put another way, you potentially lose the crutch and end up stronger as a result. This isn't a whimsical theory ei…

It doesn't make syncing harder. I've worked for high-performing global teams for DECADES, so this debate is amusing to me. It shows me which companies absolutely cannot scale past a certain point, and which perpetuate terrible communication and management practices papered over with in person smokescreens.

Work requires effective communication. Global teams place a premium on that and nurture it if they're successful. The remote work dilemma is non-global teams discovering this well-trodden ground and attempting to reinvent the wheel, with a sprinkling of terrible commercial real estate decisions on top.

(Nothing in this response addresses specific team types that benefit from in person work or the entirely valid in-office preferences of individual workers.)

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

#477

Post by aynyc »

hiatus wrote: post #287
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't know the big companies. But a lot of smaller firms I used to install software systems own their own buildings (basically, a big residential house or a small warehouse). The company owner owns the building, the actual company leases the building to the owner.

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

#478

Post by mfitton »

nine_k wrote: post #341
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…

BTW this is where commute by public transport shines. My 30 minutes to the office are my dedicated reading time, an hour a day. If instead I had to drive, that would be lost time, because paying enough attention to the book distracts enough from driving to add unnecessary risk.

I have a public transit commute, but at the end of the day it's 8 minutes of walking to the train, a transfer after 7 minutes, and then a 7 minute walk to the office from the train. Never enough unbroken time to get into a book :(. I've learned something new about public transit commuting--look for a commute with as long a single stint on the train as possible, while still trying to minimize total time.

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

#479

Post by askonomm »

coldpie wrote: post #307
bdw5204 wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My commute is about 40 minutes each way by bus, plus a 5 minute walk on both ends. I love it. I get outdoors for a short walk four times a day, I read books and magazines on the bus, see what's being built or new businesses opening around town, sometimes I get to meet neighbors and other commuters, or help out random strangers with directions or whatever. My commute to work is definitely a benefit to my life.

This is the most institutionalized-minded answer I have seen.

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

#480

Post by pawelwentpawel »

chatmasta wrote: post #472
dgfitz wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You spend around 8 hours on travel weekly which amounts to around 45 days of full-time work per year and will sum up to 450 days of full-time work (3600 hours) over 10 years. It's 4 years of full-time work days (9000 hours!) over 25 years. Kind of wish I hadn't looked... :(

And if you're driving to the office, that's 450 hours where you can get into a fatal accident, with about half of them in the morning when you might be too sleep-deprived to safely operate a motor vehicle. Driving on four hours of sleep is the equivalent of drunk driving. And if your start time is the same every day, then it's likely you'll have many nights where you fall asleep too late, maybe even because you're pr…

Or 450 hours of breathing with polluted air stuck in an outdated underground train system - https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/london-underground-pollution
Post reply on HN