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

The Rise of the WeWorking Class

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 109 posts

Re: The Rise of the WeWorking Class

#81

Post by jdormit »

porpoisely wrote: post #69
dalbasal wrote: post #33

What a long winded article. I don't really understand the fascination/surprise at wework and similar. It's just office space, packaged in a way that suits a few underserved markets. Flexibility is valuable, and was previously underavailable. It also turned out that a lot of the "work-from-home" people would like office space, if it's nice and they can afford it. What is so surprising or notable here? A slightly quirk…

It's just paid PR for WeWork. WeWork must have a great PR team and most importantly investors with significant contacts because they get great press. http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html

I don't know, the tone of the article wasn't actually super favorable towards WeWork. The author outright mocked their founder pretty consistently throughout the piece. The vibe I got was more, "WeWorks are nice to work at but they are not as revolutionary as they think they are".

Re: The Rise of the WeWorking Class

#82

Post by dalbasal »

notacoward wrote: post #64
dalbasal wrote: post #33

What a long winded article. I don't really understand the fascination/surprise at wework and similar. It's just office space, packaged in a way that suits a few underserved markets. Flexibility is valuable, and was previously underavailable. It also turned out that a lot of the "work-from-home" people would like office space, if it's nice and they can afford it. What is so surprising or notable here? A slightly quirk…

> It's just office space, packaged in a way that suits a few underserved markets. The whole point of the article is that it's not. "All its accessories serve to buttress its real product: “office culture” as a service." It might be more helpful to address the flaws in their argument than merely to state its opposite.

I don't know how to argue against an abstract claim like that. You could say coca cola's real product is "A taste of 1950s America" or that a designer suit is really "a statement of intent."

How do you argue that it is, in fact, a drink?

Re: The Rise of the WeWorking Class

#83

Post by SCdF »

WeWork is absurdly expensive.

IDK, or I'm absurdly cheap (or am not the target audience)

In London you pay £450-850(!) per month for wework space, from a hotdesk (aka "go to a cafe / library") to a private office.

Instead, I just moved from a one bedroom flat to a two bedroom flat, increasing my rent by about £250 per month, and now have both a private office and a place for guests / co-workers to stay when they come to town.

Re: The Rise of the WeWorking Class

#84

Post by jtms »

meddlepal wrote: post #70
rb808 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> WeWork is how people not in larger youth communities meet to get laid I never knew, maybe they should advertise this more.

I'm not sure what that line is supposed to mean. I work in a WeWork as well and everyone seems to be working. Maybe some are worse than others...

I met my wife at work while we seemed to be working.

Re: The Rise of the WeWorking Class

#85

Post by kristianc »

jdormit wrote: post #81
porpoisely wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just paid PR for WeWork. WeWork must have a great PR team and most importantly investors with significant contacts because they get great press. http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html

I don't know, the tone of the article wasn't actually super favorable towards WeWork. The author outright mocked their founder pretty consistently throughout the piece. The vibe I got was more, "WeWorks are nice to work at but they are not as revolutionary as they think they are".

For a PR company, a few negative comments about the business model is a price-of-admission to the New York Times and a pre-requisite for getting it past an editor.

Largely, it's one the PR company / WeWork are happy to pay because they get to say they've been in the NYT, they get exposed to new potential new customers without having to pay per lead, and 'WeWorking' becomes a step closer to being a verb with WeWork's brand attached to it.

Re: The Rise of the WeWorking Class

#86

Post by RankingMember »

dsr_ wrote: post #74
RankingMember wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a good way to create an opening for a WeWork competitor to swoop in and eat their lunch. Companies get a whiff of that kind of level of tech monitoring even being a possibility and any CSO will have them scrambling for the door.

Since that didn't happen with Facebook, Google or Amazon, why would you think it would happen with WeWork? (WeWork is valued around $22,000,000,000, about the same as GOOG's IPO.)

WeWork is basically a real estate business, not a tech company. The barrier to entry to create a competitor is not exceptionally high, technology-wise. Not so with the companies you mentioned.

Re: The Rise of the WeWorking Class

#87

Post by bsenftner »

woah wrote: post #67
jmknoll wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, I work out of a wework near my house in Shanghai. I’m a software engineer in my 30’s. Our office is on the other side of the city from where I live, and takes over an hour on the subway to get there. I don’t need to be there physically, so I arranged with my boss to work from home 4 days a week. But working from home is tough, so I work instead from the wework around the corner from my house. Your mileage may v…

Maybe the reality is that Los Angeles is a youth community of people spending mom and dad money

Probably this.

Re: The Rise of the WeWorking Class

#88

Post by mithr »

burger_moon wrote: post #73
geofft wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article doesn't have enough detail to conclude whether "admonished" meant politely or with disrespect.

In what situation would you walk up to a stranger and tell them to be mindful of themselves for carrying a plastic water bottle and it's not disrespectful. Mind your own business maybe?

> In what situation would you walk up to a stranger

Walking up to a stranger is one thing, but that really wasn't the case here... in this case, a comment was made to company-appointed P.R. representative who was present at a meeting with a journalist who was there to write about the company, its values, and its culture. I think the founder of the company commenting on the same company's P.R. person not adhering to the company's values is very much him "minding his own business".

Re: The Rise of the WeWorking Class

#89

Post by Aeolun »

skohan wrote: post #71
bsenftner wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I ran a competing CoWorking space in Los Angeles. WeWork is the opposite of the no-frills aesthetic: they have lots of perks, fun perks, they are not cheap, and having any one perk is conspicuous. WeWork is how people not in larger youth communities meet to get laid. That is it. WeWork is a youth community of people spending mom & dad money, conspicuously in a play-like-work space, not really working, and being super…

I have not been to a WeWork, but this is the vibe I got from their advertising: the one that pops up for me on YouTube features a group of good looking millennials, dressed office-chic, walking confidently and shaking hands in slow motion with auspicious music in the background. The entire message is aesthetic: there's no dialog or text at all, let alone an argument as to why WeWork would benefit your organization. I…

Probably because that’s how it’s sold? WeWork is a lifestyle brand.

It’s just interesting they took something like renting out office space and made it something like that

Re: The Rise of the WeWorking Class

#90

Post by BucketSort »

notacoward wrote: post #41
geofft wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article doesn't have enough detail to conclude whether "admonished" meant politely or with disrespect.

Exactly. The article didn't mention disrespect, but BucketSort did. Two different questions. When peteretep replied to one with an answer only applicable to the other, it seemed worth pointing out.

It's absolutely disrespectful to "admonish" someone in a meeting like this. I mean, it is basically saying "you are making shitty choices." If you were a friend, that's another matter. I'm still trying to back the idea that there should be a civil barrier of respect that is not crossed in formal dealings. If someone is dealing with you in a capacity that their job demands, you should treat them as a person in that capacity. They don't necessarily want to be there, they must be. The last thing you want is for people to get personal. I'm obviously not just talking about this situation, but the way we conduct ourselves in general. It makes navigating society much easier when people respect these boundaries.
Post reply on HN