The workers have spoken: They're staying home(computerworld.com)
computerworld.com
The workers have spoken: They're staying home
https://www.computerworld.com/article/2520794/the-workers-have-spoken-theyre-staying-home.html
262 comments
So much relates to commute. I'd probably meander in for a halfway decent office arrangement if it were less than a 30 minute walk and there were actually people I worked with there. But that hasn't been the case so I don't.
Same. I’m glad I work in a fully remote org.
We actually have an office. It’s over an hour commute away from me. And I have school-aged children that I have to prepare and drop off in the mornings. None of my co-workers work there. So I basically never go.
At my last job I did have an office that was within walking distance. My children were much younger. I had a dedicated desk and office. And I managed to make it in every day.
Commutes are a big factor in the decision. For a lot of reasons. Climate, expense, convenience, etc.
We actually have an office. It’s over an hour commute away from me. And I have school-aged children that I have to prepare and drop off in the mornings. None of my co-workers work there. So I basically never go.
At my last job I did have an office that was within walking distance. My children were much younger. I had a dedicated desk and office. And I managed to make it in every day.
Commutes are a big factor in the decision. For a lot of reasons. Climate, expense, convenience, etc.
But commute can change.
For example, if you lived in Mountain View in walking distance of Google, would you turn down an offer from Facebook because your home in Mountain View is no longer walking distance to Facebook HQ?
Also, life situations. If your partner has a job at a school or hospital that requires physical presence whose commute do you prioritize?
Making jobs that can be remote, remote gives workers massive flexibility in work arrangements with partners as well as being able to change jobs.
For example, if you lived in Mountain View in walking distance of Google, would you turn down an offer from Facebook because your home in Mountain View is no longer walking distance to Facebook HQ?
Also, life situations. If your partner has a job at a school or hospital that requires physical presence whose commute do you prioritize?
Making jobs that can be remote, remote gives workers massive flexibility in work arrangements with partners as well as being able to change jobs.
I read a theory that this is part of the reason why people are migrating to metro areas. Metro areas are more likely to have industries for both spouses careers as opposed to just one. Enabling fully remote for remote eligible roles makes it possible for couples to migrate to areas that only support one of their in-person careers.
Last year we had a lab that was 25 minutes away. I carpooled with a neighbor. It seemed, OK, especially as we only went in a couple of times a week.
We lost that space and switched to a lab about 10 minutes away. It's amazing what a difference that made! We go in more often because the psychological cost is so much lower.
We could have rented lab space that is less than 5 minutes' walk for me, but no such luck.
We lost that space and switched to a lab about 10 minutes away. It's amazing what a difference that made! We go in more often because the psychological cost is so much lower.
We could have rented lab space that is less than 5 minutes' walk for me, but no such luck.
Same. For me, the office is door to door 35 minutes, 20 of those walking, the other 15 on light railway. Any longer than that and I would really struggle. As it is, this arrangement works well for me. I tend to WFH one day out of ten, or if I have a reason to be at home such as a delivery or a tradesperson visiting.
Somewhere I found an essay that references some claims that humans dislike traveling for more than something around an hour a day. And it doesn't depend on mode of transport.
Ten years ago, my commute was an hour by bus each way. I didn't mind it so much then, but I definitely wouldn't go to an employer who required that of me now. The light railway system is so much nicer than the bus, and I enjoy the walking part.
I used to work for a company where we were in at least one day a week. In practice that mean arriving around 10.30 and leaving around 4 on wednesday, spending half of the time on meetings or whiteboard sessions, and the rest was pretty socialising for several of us. I didn't mind that - it was 30 minutes on the train and a short walk for me, and it broke up the week. Any more than that, and it'll take significantly more money to get me in.
I wonder what WFH arrangements in Copenhagen or Amsterdam look like.
Obviously I can't speak for everyone, but the few folks I know in Copenhagen do WFH as hybrid - none of them are fully remote, coming into an easily commutable office 2-3 days a week or some variation of this.
Probably somewhat depends if you actually live in the city. When I worked in or went into Boston for customer meetings, I actually lived quite convenient to public transit (commuter rail/subway/walk), but it was still 90-120 minutes each way.
Hybrid. I’ll show up at the office 1-2 days a week. We’ll agree on a weekday.
traditional urban planning in the USA includes extensive field research that shows .. just what you are saying.. there is a demographic curve about time to commute and who is willing to do it, and how often.. behavior on a large scale across industries, show curves like that
I suspect that traditional urban planning in the USA also assumed that relatively few people would be trying to pack into city centers to work. Because modern office parks hadn't been invented yet, and modern curtain wall skyscrapers hadn't been invented yet, and consolidating many industries into a relatively small number of massive tech companies hadn't happened yet, and the two-income family (which doubles the potential number of commuters per dwelling unit) hadn't become such a thing yet, etc.
There's a part of me that wonders if part of what's going on here is a cadre of genxers who are so wealthy as to necessarily be out-of-touch don't realize that typical millennials' and zoomers' socioeconomic reality is not, and cannot reasonably be forced to be, similar to that of boomers and the greatest generation.
There's a part of me that wonders if part of what's going on here is a cadre of genxers who are so wealthy as to necessarily be out-of-touch don't realize that typical millennials' and zoomers' socioeconomic reality is not, and cannot reasonably be forced to be, similar to that of boomers and the greatest generation.
There are a lot of dynamics. Certainly among my grad school class almost no one went to work/live in the city in the late 80s. And, indeed, essentially all tech had migrated out of the city (Boston/Cambridge) by then.
A lot of people did move to Manhattan for finance. But most left after they gained partners and kids.
In general, I suspect a lot of younger/better-educated/wealthier folks have latched onto some of the more elite cities, when they might not have done so in the past, but may not stay there over time.
A lot of people did move to Manhattan for finance. But most left after they gained partners and kids.
In general, I suspect a lot of younger/better-educated/wealthier folks have latched onto some of the more elite cities, when they might not have done so in the past, but may not stay there over time.
Yes and no. I lived (no joke) 1 minute away from work and if I still had the choice would mostly stay home. For me, an office now is kinda of a bar. I want to go sometimes for a moment and then get back to my place.
Well said. During the span of my career, the office went from being a perfectly fine place to get work done; then degraded to a cube farm environment which was worse, but you you could work around it and get stuff done anyway; then to an open office environment which was hellish enough that it got me to quit my job and vow to never work in such an environment again.
Commute is certainly an important aspect, too, but when I worked in the place that adopted an open office layout, I lived a literal 10 minute walk away. Having such a trivial (and pleasant) commute in no way made up for having to work in those conditions.
Commute is certainly an important aspect, too, but when I worked in the place that adopted an open office layout, I lived a literal 10 minute walk away. Having such a trivial (and pleasant) commute in no way made up for having to work in those conditions.
> then to an open office environment which was hellish enough that it got me to quite my job and vow to never work in such an environment again.
We're moving to an open plan office design, to help people collaborate and interact in new emergent ways and improve productivity.
Also, please don't talk to people at their desks, it's very distracting. Book a meeting room if you want to have a real conversation.
We're moving to an open plan office design, to help people collaborate and interact in new emergent ways and improve productivity.
Also, please don't talk to people at their desks, it's very distracting. Book a meeting room if you want to have a real conversation.
> to help people collaborate and interact in new emergent ways and improve productivity.
I wish you the best, but if history is any guide then the result will be less collaboration and a decrease in productivity.
I wish you the best, but if history is any guide then the result will be less collaboration and a decrease in productivity.
> if history is any guide then the result will be less collaboration and a decrease in productivity
Which history? Rome and Sparta had profligate (for the time) public benefits and didn’t do much worse for the wear.
Which history? Rome and Sparta had profligate (for the time) public benefits and didn’t do much worse for the wear.
I mean the recent history of companies moving to an open office plan. It appears to me that most companies that have done this have seen the opposite of the claimed goals.
Of course, the actual goal is cost reduction, and on that count, I think the effort is a success.
Of course, the actual goal is cost reduction, and on that count, I think the effort is a success.
You may have missed the /s
> Book a meeting room if you want to have a real conversation.
But act fast, the next available slot is in two weeks, assuming an exec doesn't claim the room for that full day that morning.
But act fast, the next available slot is in two weeks, assuming an exec doesn't claim the room for that full day that morning.
I clicked in to this topic to make these exact same points, but you did a better job of it than I would have.
My employer mandated a minimum number of days in-office per week and then implemented the flex desk system with all of the drawbacks that you outlined. In my company's case it's a little worse: There are, in fact, often no available open desks in my workgroup. Furthermore there's no enforcement or discipline with respect to day-of desk reservations.
So this means that about half a dozen employees have permanently camped out at a "flex" desk, essentially claiming them for their own. Everyone I guess "knows" that those aren't real flex desks in practice, or at least nobody wants to stand out as the asshole who kicks Richard off his de-facto personal desk.
For the desks that aren't permanently camped nobody bothers to use the online tool to actually reserve them. They just show up at some point during the day, and if there's no jacket on the chair or backpack under the desk or something, they just sit down at it and start using it. If you reserve the desk in the tool before coming into the office often you'll arrive to find someone sitting there who hasn't bothered to use the tool to reserve it. So then you don't have a desk at all and need to camp out in a common area on your laptop, surrounded by 3 or 4 other people blabbing away on Zoom calls.
If you confront them to kick them off the desk they'll usually move, but that's a really uncomfortable thing to do and makes you look a little like a bully to everyone around. "Dude, you snooze you lose. Dick got there first. Why don't you just go to the common area where all the other late-coming slackers have to go?"
It's a productivity hellscape that I do everything in my power to avoid. I've resorted to dropping by the office a few times a week just to badge in and grab a bite to eat from the microkitchen so that I show up in the query that management runs once a quarter to make sure everyone's badging in often enough. I also make it a point to walk prominently by several other desks and saying "hi" to people to give the illusion that I'm "in the office" on a semi-regular basis.
The first time management tries to turn the screws to deal with my behavior I'm triggering my plan to move on to a role in another company that's fully remote.
My employer mandated a minimum number of days in-office per week and then implemented the flex desk system with all of the drawbacks that you outlined. In my company's case it's a little worse: There are, in fact, often no available open desks in my workgroup. Furthermore there's no enforcement or discipline with respect to day-of desk reservations.
So this means that about half a dozen employees have permanently camped out at a "flex" desk, essentially claiming them for their own. Everyone I guess "knows" that those aren't real flex desks in practice, or at least nobody wants to stand out as the asshole who kicks Richard off his de-facto personal desk.
For the desks that aren't permanently camped nobody bothers to use the online tool to actually reserve them. They just show up at some point during the day, and if there's no jacket on the chair or backpack under the desk or something, they just sit down at it and start using it. If you reserve the desk in the tool before coming into the office often you'll arrive to find someone sitting there who hasn't bothered to use the tool to reserve it. So then you don't have a desk at all and need to camp out in a common area on your laptop, surrounded by 3 or 4 other people blabbing away on Zoom calls.
If you confront them to kick them off the desk they'll usually move, but that's a really uncomfortable thing to do and makes you look a little like a bully to everyone around. "Dude, you snooze you lose. Dick got there first. Why don't you just go to the common area where all the other late-coming slackers have to go?"
It's a productivity hellscape that I do everything in my power to avoid. I've resorted to dropping by the office a few times a week just to badge in and grab a bite to eat from the microkitchen so that I show up in the query that management runs once a quarter to make sure everyone's badging in often enough. I also make it a point to walk prominently by several other desks and saying "hi" to people to give the illusion that I'm "in the office" on a semi-regular basis.
The first time management tries to turn the screws to deal with my behavior I'm triggering my plan to move on to a role in another company that's fully remote.
Mixed bag for me. My office is pretty decent but we have a bigger office than we currently need.
My last job, at the office it was so loud (no dedicated conference rooms) that I was better off being at home, but unfortunately they also had zero respect for calendars, so getting in touch with people was... pretty much horrible no matter what way. In-office was less bad.
I had offices with desks so small and shitty I just wished for working from home at a normal desk. I once had a boss that saw my desk and started complaining to HR that it was too big, and if we can split this desk into 2 to save on office space.
TL;DR - works sucks. It sucks more when management can't get their shit together.
My last job, at the office it was so loud (no dedicated conference rooms) that I was better off being at home, but unfortunately they also had zero respect for calendars, so getting in touch with people was... pretty much horrible no matter what way. In-office was less bad.
I had offices with desks so small and shitty I just wished for working from home at a normal desk. I once had a boss that saw my desk and started complaining to HR that it was too big, and if we can split this desk into 2 to save on office space.
TL;DR - works sucks. It sucks more when management can't get their shit together.
>I once had a boss that saw my desk and started complaining to HR that it was too big, and if we can split this desk into 2 to save on office space.
ooh, I know the perfect way to save on office space...
as is the theme of 2023/4, Companies want to pretend they want X, but then make X as miserable as possible because the real reason is Y (anywhere from taxes, to sunk cost fallacy, to lack of trust in workers, etc).
ooh, I know the perfect way to save on office space...
as is the theme of 2023/4, Companies want to pretend they want X, but then make X as miserable as possible because the real reason is Y (anywhere from taxes, to sunk cost fallacy, to lack of trust in workers, etc).
This was... 2018. They'd also take an office meant for 1 person and convert it into a 3-person room, with a lack of airflow.
It was bad.
It was bad.
> boss that saw my desk and started complaining to HR that it was too big
Wow, your boss is a real dickhead.
Wow, your boss is a real dickhead.
Sorry I said "Boss", I meant "CEO".
Yes. Yes he was. He felt that a half-sized ikea desk was too much space for people and needed to sardeen people into a room as tightly as possible.
Yes. Yes he was. He felt that a half-sized ikea desk was too much space for people and needed to sardeen people into a room as tightly as possible.
With no specific location you should be sought at and more butts than desks nobody should expect to be able to find you anyway.
That’s the thing. If the office was actually a place where people could feel comfortable and collaborate, I would consider going there. But going to an open space noisy office talking on Teams to people all over the world doesn’t make much sense.
I once had to take a 4 hour trip to France to go on site to debug a customer's problem. As soon as I got there, my contact walked me into a meeting room, and promptly started a Teams meeting with a team in Paris. At no point was I allowed anywhere near their infrastructure: I had to dictate commands to one of the guys in the Teams call, who would then execute them.
I'm so glad I no longer have anything to do with those clowns.
I'm so glad I no longer have anything to do with those clowns.
The company I work for took the pandemic to cancel the vending machines and coffee service that we had. They re-established the coffee service after about a month after their RTO mandate because people were refusing to come in. The vending machines are still gone.
If I want to get a snack, I have to end up walking fifteen minutes to a cafeteria in another building, get it, and then walk back. That cafeteria is also the cafeteria that most people eat lunch in, so half of my lunch break is gone just walking there and back.
No wonder why nobody wants to come back - I have better snacks, food, and coffee at home and it takes me less than five minutes to grab some.
If I want to get a snack, I have to end up walking fifteen minutes to a cafeteria in another building, get it, and then walk back. That cafeteria is also the cafeteria that most people eat lunch in, so half of my lunch break is gone just walking there and back.
No wonder why nobody wants to come back - I have better snacks, food, and coffee at home and it takes me less than five minutes to grab some.
We had a coffee machine on our side of the building, now only the machine on the other side is left. To be replaced with two miniscule nespresso machines. I don’t understand why anyone would try to save money on such a critical piece of equipment…
'And so the mandatory in-office days are, in practice, just the days that fully remote team members need to cut the hybrid members some slack for not being able to get anything done.' - can I have a Slack status message this long?
"Holding Court, Responses Delayed :upside down face emoji:"
I'm full time remote and have been so for years. The two companies I've worked for since 2020 took the downtime to reconfigure most offices to high capacity open office floorplans. The background noise on zoom calls went from manageable before covid to blissfully low and has returned to cacaphonic new heights.
> packing and unpacking all your shit
This is often overlooked. Humans are weird about making spaces our "own." The emotional response to a blank desk versus the same desk, in the same place, surrounded by the same people but with some nonsense bauble--or houseplant you're torturing--that makes it your own is massive.
This is often overlooked. Humans are weird about making spaces our "own." The emotional response to a blank desk versus the same desk, in the same place, surrounded by the same people but with some nonsense bauble--or houseplant you're torturing--that makes it your own is massive.
This move toward not giving permanent desk assignments to people who are required to be in the office also makes it worse
If you're required to hot desk you might as well do it someplace more pleasant.
If you're required to hot desk you might as well do it someplace more pleasant.
Few things indicate a company's extreme antipathy towards its workers as much as hot-desking does.
One of the very nice things about working in academia is that I now have a private office. It has been a huge productivity and quality of (work)life boost. I don't understand why tech companies continue with open plan offices when they know their workers dislike them and have known this for years (decades?).
Having a low stress reverse commute on 280, one of the bay area's most scenic highways, probably also helps.
Having a low stress reverse commute on 280, one of the bay area's most scenic highways, probably also helps.
Very well said. Just to add I have problems with my eyesight and the company I work at makes zero effort to accommodate this. It took me a while to be sure as I don't want to exaggerate, but for some tasks I reckon I'm only half as productive in the office. This includes pair programming - share your screen on Zoom and I can use my big monitor and accessibility tools, which gives me half a chance.
Oh, and the chairs make my arse* hurt.
This isn't a stupid little startup either, it's a listed and profitable company worth billions.
I stay because they know how bad it is so I just go in a few times per month to socialise.
(* Please forgive the lewd British slang).
Oh, and the chairs make my arse* hurt.
This isn't a stupid little startup either, it's a listed and profitable company worth billions.
I stay because they know how bad it is so I just go in a few times per month to socialise.
(* Please forgive the lewd British slang).
I kind of like going to the office, but it was pretty depressing to work from a share office for a few days only to realize the work environment there is so much nicer because they actually need to compete on that…
It is incredibly short sighted not to provide a dedicated desk.
If I don't have a dedicated desk where I can leave stuff, I won't be coming to the office. Simple as that. Wasting time commuting is bad enough, but if I'm not even worth 2 square metres, why would I want to work for those people?
I’ve been amazed that none of the companies who have long-term leases they hate to waste have tried building actual personal offices for their staff in the space. Let the folks who moved further away stay home, but make the actual office experience something better.
I suppose it depends on the utilization. Even before COVID I maybe used my desk once every two weeks or so and eventually just gave it up.
Sure, if someone doesn’t care or is infrequently there, then don’t bother. If someone is in the office a few days a week, give ‘em a desk.
Hoteling is probably a pain for a regular. Yeah, something like 3 days per week is is probably about the threshold.
I'm curious whether the open plan offices are just to look pretty or if that layout actually works for the people (interior designers) who design them.
> Office life post-COVID is an entirely new thing that's worse than what office life was like pre-COVID
Yep. Now, on any given day, half the office is at home. So, even if you're there, you probably still need to use Zoom for meetings or collaboration. At that point, why? I don't like Zoom but if I have no choice I might as well be at home and not commuting in to a half-empty office.
I still find some value in working at work. I find it easier to focus, I'm not distracted by household tasks and activities. But I could achieve that by just getting out of the house, going to Starbucks, or a co-working space, or the park. I don't need a permanent office to go to.
Yep. Now, on any given day, half the office is at home. So, even if you're there, you probably still need to use Zoom for meetings or collaboration. At that point, why? I don't like Zoom but if I have no choice I might as well be at home and not commuting in to a half-empty office.
I still find some value in working at work. I find it easier to focus, I'm not distracted by household tasks and activities. But I could achieve that by just getting out of the house, going to Starbucks, or a co-working space, or the park. I don't need a permanent office to go to.
> I still find some value in working at work. I find it easier to focus
I'm jealous! For me, the office is where it's hard to focus. Once or twice a week, I even give up on getting anything done at all during the workday and just warm my seat, making up for the lost time at home that evening.
I'm jealous! For me, the office is where it's hard to focus. Once or twice a week, I even give up on getting anything done at all during the workday and just warm my seat, making up for the lost time at home that evening.
Noise is a real concern that is largely unaccounted for in those CAD renderings sold to management.
I'm sure that office done well can beat out remote jobs, but so many fail short
> This move toward not giving permanent desk assignments to people who are required to be in the office also makes it worse.
Yeah, this is a real noodle scratcher. WTH is the logic here?
Yeah, this is a real noodle scratcher. WTH is the logic here?
>A couple years ago, I was eager for a return to office.
There's your first mistake.
You're right that recent trends have been bad, but offices have always been like this. There's a reason "this meeting could have been an email" has been a cliche for decades now and even before that the office was generally depicted as a place where you either pretend to work or desperately struggle to get work done in the face of endless pointless bullshit.
There's your first mistake.
You're right that recent trends have been bad, but offices have always been like this. There's a reason "this meeting could have been an email" has been a cliche for decades now and even before that the office was generally depicted as a place where you either pretend to work or desperately struggle to get work done in the face of endless pointless bullshit.
as always it varies. First job was very 00's style cubicle arrangement. You may have to move depending on what project/team you were on but you could count on a dedicated desk at any given time.
2nd was a WeWork building. open office room, but the arrangement had plenty of private booths (sharing the floor with like, one other startup) or lounges depending on your needs.
then 3 was mid pandemic and the return was a lot more of that "reserve your desk" style. It was a "true hybrid" workplace, though (0-5 days a week in office. Your choice, zero pressure), so it was only during certain big deadlines where it'd cause difficulties.
2nd was a WeWork building. open office room, but the arrangement had plenty of private booths (sharing the floor with like, one other startup) or lounges depending on your needs.
then 3 was mid pandemic and the return was a lot more of that "reserve your desk" style. It was a "true hybrid" workplace, though (0-5 days a week in office. Your choice, zero pressure), so it was only during certain big deadlines where it'd cause difficulties.
> You're right that recent trends have been bad, but offices have always been like this. There's a reason "this meeting could have been an email" has been a cliche for decades now and even before that the office was generally depicted as a place where you either pretend to work or desperately struggle to get work done in the face of endless pointless bullshit.
What? My workplace pre-covid assigned us 1-2 person offices and had a handful of dedicated meeting rooms. If someone was having a loud conversation in the hallway you'd either close your door or ask them to move to a meeting room. It was almost as easy to focus there and then as it is in my home office now.
The company I'm at now has an open floorplan with no assigned seats. The few employees who are actually in the office are often on calls with people at one of our other locations. There are enough people who do this that there aren't enough meeting rooms for everyone to take a call in private.
What? My workplace pre-covid assigned us 1-2 person offices and had a handful of dedicated meeting rooms. If someone was having a loud conversation in the hallway you'd either close your door or ask them to move to a meeting room. It was almost as easy to focus there and then as it is in my home office now.
The company I'm at now has an open floorplan with no assigned seats. The few employees who are actually in the office are often on calls with people at one of our other locations. There are enough people who do this that there aren't enough meeting rooms for everyone to take a call in private.
We'll be writing about why this is for years.
COVID gave people or in many cases made people re-evaluate what's important to them and many people concluded that their work-life balance placed too much importance on work. People had been thinking, what parts of their life were they willing to give up for work, but now the question of what parts of work are they willing to give up for their life is considered a valid, and possible decision.
This decision wasn't made in the abstract; WFH gave people real experience in what they would gain and lose by not going into the office, and what they would gain and lose by not commuting, and in many many cases, the tradeoff was worth it.
COVID gave people or in many cases made people re-evaluate what's important to them and many people concluded that their work-life balance placed too much importance on work. People had been thinking, what parts of their life were they willing to give up for work, but now the question of what parts of work are they willing to give up for their life is considered a valid, and possible decision.
This decision wasn't made in the abstract; WFH gave people real experience in what they would gain and lose by not going into the office, and what they would gain and lose by not commuting, and in many many cases, the tradeoff was worth it.
I think people realized, in part as a result of changes from Covid, that they don’t care about work as much as they thought. And when they evaluate what they are willing to give up moving forward, it looks a lot different than it did pre Covid.
I feel like a lot of this could be solved with a month long holiday like they do in Europe. US workers are lucky to get a few days off in a row without interruption.
Open office is also just horrendous.
Open office is also just horrendous.
For me, regardless of the length of the holiday, the second I’m back at work it’s like I was never away at all (in a bad way). And I work from home.
> I feel like a lot of this could be solved with a month long holiday like they do in Europe.
It could, but my initial assessment is that US workers tend to not make the connection that a reduced social safety net raises the stakes of employment and results in workers eventually playing a game of chicken sacrificing aspects of their quality of life like vacation, commute, and environment for job security.
It could, but my initial assessment is that US workers tend to not make the connection that a reduced social safety net raises the stakes of employment and results in workers eventually playing a game of chicken sacrificing aspects of their quality of life like vacation, commute, and environment for job security.
If you give me a private office I will come into work every day from 9-5 and make sure I spend at least 40 hours a week being "fully present" for work.
If you force me to hot desk I will come into work as infrequently as possible and may or may not be "present" for work whether I'm at home or in the shared-space environment at the office.
But the "fully present" metric doesn't show up on the bean counters' spreadsheets as a quantifiable metric, so here we are.
If you force me to hot desk I will come into work as infrequently as possible and may or may not be "present" for work whether I'm at home or in the shared-space environment at the office.
But the "fully present" metric doesn't show up on the bean counters' spreadsheets as a quantifiable metric, so here we are.
It's not even your fault. You'll be so distracted by the turbulence of the open floor plan that even at your best you'll barely concentrate
Companies get so much more out of people working from home - Microsoft has realized this and still broadly supports remote work.
> Companies get so much more out of people working from home
We actually saw a very bimodal split: One group of employees had virtually no measurable change (neither improvement or decline) in any metric, subjective or otherwise.
The other group's productivity plummeted by nearly all metrics (again, from subjective performance reviews to any objective measures we looked at).
The angry internet comment section solution is to fire everyone in group #2 (people who can't work from home), but that group was large enough that no amount of firing or intensive coaching was going to turn the ship around.
The problem isn't as simple as you read about on internet comment sections. In my experience, it's good to have some remote employees but the WFH dynamic collapses when you try to let everyone do it. It's not appropriate for everyone. Normalize having some remote employees while requiring others to be in the office if they can't handle WFH. It's hard.
We actually saw a very bimodal split: One group of employees had virtually no measurable change (neither improvement or decline) in any metric, subjective or otherwise.
The other group's productivity plummeted by nearly all metrics (again, from subjective performance reviews to any objective measures we looked at).
The angry internet comment section solution is to fire everyone in group #2 (people who can't work from home), but that group was large enough that no amount of firing or intensive coaching was going to turn the ship around.
The problem isn't as simple as you read about on internet comment sections. In my experience, it's good to have some remote employees but the WFH dynamic collapses when you try to let everyone do it. It's not appropriate for everyone. Normalize having some remote employees while requiring others to be in the office if they can't handle WFH. It's hard.
I am in group #1, and left my previous company over their return to office policy. It felt very unfair that a company would insist I spend my time and resources to work in a less comfortable environment because some people cannot focus without being in an office and having managers look over their shoulder.
> the problem isn't as simple as you read about on internet comment sections. In my experience, it's good to have some remote employees but the WFH dynamic collapses when you try to let everyone do it. It's not appropriate for everyone.
We talk about this, but also never particularly talk about how many an office space isn't for everyone. Especially as Gen Z, who grew up with smart tech and instant, HD remote communication, starts to enter the workforce.
I'd say you simply have to choose one or the other per team. If it doesn't work for some, move teams or fire them. It's not like management doesn't make unoptimal, undesirable moves all the time so this situation isn't special.
We talk about this, but also never particularly talk about how many an office space isn't for everyone. Especially as Gen Z, who grew up with smart tech and instant, HD remote communication, starts to enter the workforce.
I'd say you simply have to choose one or the other per team. If it doesn't work for some, move teams or fire them. It's not like management doesn't make unoptimal, undesirable moves all the time so this situation isn't special.
Then why forcing group 1 in office is acceptable, but forcing group 2 remote unacceptable?
Ideally noone gets forced and group 2 just has a little more space in the office
I'd love that, but from my understanding, group 2 doesn't want to be at the office to attend zoom meetings
Agree but Microsoft has more going for it than just remote work support. My wife switched from Microsoft to a much younger, hip tech company and her quality of life plummeted. The higher work intensity, forced RTO, and the overall lack of parents at the company and especially at the leadership levels made for an unsympathetic place for her to work while dealing with the day to day life of a parent to young children. RTO would not have been an issue at Microsoft even if they had mandated it due to the increased flexibility and chill. And the fact that it's in a safe suburb rather than the somewhat problematic streets of our west coast city. She chose to quit her job to be a stay at home mom. Despite all the lip service paid to supporting women's careers, the tech industry is showing its true colors.
>the tech industry is showing its true colors.
I'm not sure a WLB issue with one company is reflective of the tech industry as a whole. If anything, it seems the tech industry is much more accommodating to the needs of flexibility than other similarly paying industries like medicine, law, finance, etc. That, in and of it self raises an issue with modern work culture. There's currently a bit of a panic happening amongst those who study demographics. People are having less kids, and the pressures of modern living are part of the problem. I think the only way you're going to turn that trend around is by being way more flexible with and accommodating with workers. Either WLB gets better, or demographic collapse gets worse. Modern society has some choices to make.
I'm not sure a WLB issue with one company is reflective of the tech industry as a whole. If anything, it seems the tech industry is much more accommodating to the needs of flexibility than other similarly paying industries like medicine, law, finance, etc. That, in and of it self raises an issue with modern work culture. There's currently a bit of a panic happening amongst those who study demographics. People are having less kids, and the pressures of modern living are part of the problem. I think the only way you're going to turn that trend around is by being way more flexible with and accommodating with workers. Either WLB gets better, or demographic collapse gets worse. Modern society has some choices to make.
>Companies get so much more out of people working from home - Microsoft has realized this and still broadly supports remote work.
This is what I find so funny. We accomplished more in the two years of full remote than any period before or since. Half the company now runs on software built during that time. But management refuses to acknowledge the fact, and mandated RTO.
I am 100% convinced that a full remote team can run circles around the same team in-office. Probably we will see a new crop of startups eating people's lunch that haven't figured this out.
This is what I find so funny. We accomplished more in the two years of full remote than any period before or since. Half the company now runs on software built during that time. But management refuses to acknowledge the fact, and mandated RTO.
I am 100% convinced that a full remote team can run circles around the same team in-office. Probably we will see a new crop of startups eating people's lunch that haven't figured this out.
I got to meet some of my coworkers in person for the first time recently and it was obvious that the structures re: who respects whom that we had built online were ignorant of meaningless physical details like how commanding a presence one has when they enter a room.
This informed my new hypothesis: The people most in opposition to remote work are those who rely on charisma rather than other merits to remain relevant. They're losing the ground on which they have an advantage.
They tend to be tall and with a voice that carries well over a crowd.
This informed my new hypothesis: The people most in opposition to remote work are those who rely on charisma rather than other merits to remain relevant. They're losing the ground on which they have an advantage.
They tend to be tall and with a voice that carries well over a crowd.
The team I work on was created at the start of covid, as we didn't all meet in person for the first time until 2 years later too - it was really funny to learn that one person on the team was like, 6'4! Nobody knew!
Somebody on my team who I respect very much turns out to have a small voice. Like, you just can't hear him over any kind of ambient noise. He's still a badass in my eyes, but I have to ask if he would be if we shared an office. Not that I'd consciously dismiss him. But accidents happen.
> But management refuses to acknowledge the fact, and mandated RTO.
That’s because while workers discovered they were working better at home, middle management discovered that they were useless and had nothing other to do than exert some control over workers lives.
They’re just afraid upper management may notice it.
That’s because while workers discovered they were working better at home, middle management discovered that they were useless and had nothing other to do than exert some control over workers lives.
They’re just afraid upper management may notice it.
>Microsoft has realized this and still broadly supports remote work
I wonder how this would look like if Microsoft's stock were to be doing poorly. I seem to have noticed a strong correlation between companies being all for FWH and other perks, as long as "line goes UP", but the moment it stops going up, for factors unrelated to the workforces' performance, then they start tightening the screws on the workers: RTO, layoffs, etc.
I wonder how this would look like if Microsoft's stock were to be doing poorly. I seem to have noticed a strong correlation between companies being all for FWH and other perks, as long as "line goes UP", but the moment it stops going up, for factors unrelated to the workforces' performance, then they start tightening the screws on the workers: RTO, layoffs, etc.
It really is a 'you need to double my salary' kind of negotiation with your employer. When you're actually functional doing remote/home work, adding a commute to the job requirement is like adding vinegar to wine.
Even outside the salary negotiations, it’s astounding to me how many companies are calling for RTO just to have people go to the office and sit on zoom meetings — because the company has several offices.
I’m actually ok with RTO, but I’m not going to do it when there are no actual upsides because it’s only some days and the team is spread across the globe.
I’m actually ok with RTO, but I’m not going to do it when there are no actual upsides because it’s only some days and the team is spread across the globe.
Had a friend get forced in to RTO, then was 'let go' less than 6 months later because of 'decline in performance'. He wasn't getting as much done as when he was WFH. All felt very orchestrated to get rid of someone over 50, but.. hey. Yeah, driving 60 miles round trip in rush hour 4 days per week... yeah, you might lose some productivity from a knowledge worker that way. If they were productive before, why rock the boat?
"But everyone needs to collaborate!". In my friend's case, there was no one from his unit in this state - everyone he collaborated with were already 'remote' (mostly CA, and we're in NC, but I think there were some other folks in other states too).
"But everyone needs to collaborate!". In my friend's case, there was no one from his unit in this state - everyone he collaborated with were already 'remote' (mostly CA, and we're in NC, but I think there were some other folks in other states too).
That’s discouraging. I hope he’s able to find a new position that he enjoys
Quite a lot of companies are thinning the herd for the past months and
it is set to continue for I have no idea how long.
I might stop tomorrow but I highly doubt it.
The more places get rid of workers the more the pendulum swings giving more power to the companies over their employees and who they hire.
A lot of tech worker primadonnas who have not seen the ugly politics of downsizing, right sizing, and outsourcing are going to have a tough time, as companies won't be bending over to hire folks anymore. The possibility of being unemployed not by choice, for a few weeks, until a phone call is made and a new job awaits, but as a reality for months.
The attitude that "I QUIT if I have to the office", might encounter "Good, we need to reduce headcount anyway".
The tech worker primadonnas vastly overestimats their own value to the company.
When X had mass layoffs, the general consensus for some techies was that X would die in a months' time, with all the essential people who had lost their jobs. I dont have any inside information in X and they may well have had disasters but they do appear to still exist and still function. (Or so it seems to me, but I dont even have an account)
I dont like this. I dont want it to happen. but I have been around for a couple of cycles of seeing the pendulum swing one way then the other.
The more places get rid of workers the more the pendulum swings giving more power to the companies over their employees and who they hire.
A lot of tech worker primadonnas who have not seen the ugly politics of downsizing, right sizing, and outsourcing are going to have a tough time, as companies won't be bending over to hire folks anymore. The possibility of being unemployed not by choice, for a few weeks, until a phone call is made and a new job awaits, but as a reality for months.
The attitude that "I QUIT if I have to the office", might encounter "Good, we need to reduce headcount anyway".
The tech worker primadonnas vastly overestimats their own value to the company.
When X had mass layoffs, the general consensus for some techies was that X would die in a months' time, with all the essential people who had lost their jobs. I dont have any inside information in X and they may well have had disasters but they do appear to still exist and still function. (Or so it seems to me, but I dont even have an account)
I dont like this. I dont want it to happen. but I have been around for a couple of cycles of seeing the pendulum swing one way then the other.
> The tech worker primadonnas vastly overestimats their own value to the company.
Lots of people have been saying this forever, but the truth is much more nuanced: tech workers are incredibly valuable IF interest rates are low.
Look at the revenue per employee figures of most tech companies. The difficulty is that the value of tech workers tends to be speculative until they've delivered something, and the low rates give them more time to deliver.
Lots of people have been saying this forever, but the truth is much more nuanced: tech workers are incredibly valuable IF interest rates are low.
Look at the revenue per employee figures of most tech companies. The difficulty is that the value of tech workers tends to be speculative until they've delivered something, and the low rates give them more time to deliver.
What you are arguing is provably false.
Just look at the Twitter example. There are many others. Facebook has been thinning resources as well.
There is consensus that major tech companies had hired resources they did not need.
Then there is the sad fact that some tech workers (as in any field) are shit at their jobs and provide negative value to companies. More are mediocre. (again as in every field)
There are also a lot of techworkers who are good at their jobs and some that are excptional at it.
So no. The statement: "Tech workers are incredibly valuable" is far too broad and generic.
Just look at the Twitter example. There are many others. Facebook has been thinning resources as well.
There is consensus that major tech companies had hired resources they did not need.
Then there is the sad fact that some tech workers (as in any field) are shit at their jobs and provide negative value to companies. More are mediocre. (again as in every field)
There are also a lot of techworkers who are good at their jobs and some that are excptional at it.
So no. The statement: "Tech workers are incredibly valuable" is far too broad and generic.
You missed off the second part of the argument: "tech workers are incredibly valuable IF interest rates are low." The point being made was that tech companies can be a lot more speculative when money is cheap.
I work in an admnistrative office on a university campus. Work from home was great for IT folks, but not so much for a lot of regular staff. Some people had young children that didn't understand that "you can't bother mommy or daddy right now" and it was a constant fight. Some of them had to use their own computers to connect to their machine at work through a vpn, and had a lot of trouble getting that to work. Some had noisy roommates, some of them had problems "turning off" at the end of the day. Some of them had to call students back and didn't have a private place to have those conversations.
There were some that enjoyed it, of course. Also, most everyone in the office loved using Teams to stay connected and it's still used for everything even after we've been back in office for years at this point.
But not everyone lives in an environment where they can just set up a chair on the deck and sip wine while they work on their items for the sprint.
It was a pretty easy sell getting workers back in the office for us. It helped that most people lived less than a 10 minute drive away.
There were some that enjoyed it, of course. Also, most everyone in the office loved using Teams to stay connected and it's still used for everything even after we've been back in office for years at this point.
But not everyone lives in an environment where they can just set up a chair on the deck and sip wine while they work on their items for the sprint.
It was a pretty easy sell getting workers back in the office for us. It helped that most people lived less than a 10 minute drive away.
> Some people had young children that didn't understand that "you can't bother mommy or daddy right now" and it was a constant fight.
When you're working from home, you yourself have to treat it as being "at work" just as much as you expect others to.
This means that if both parents are working from home, you still need someone else to look after your kids. Either out-of-home daycare (preferred) or an in-home babysitter.
When you're working from home, you yourself have to treat it as being "at work" just as much as you expect others to.
This means that if both parents are working from home, you still need someone else to look after your kids. Either out-of-home daycare (preferred) or an in-home babysitter.
Yeah, I shared a small, nondescript office with another developer because we wanted to separate our work life from our home life. It was a 15 minute walk away, and had none of the distractions of a real office.
> But not everyone lives in an environment where they can just set up a chair on the deck and sip wine while they work on their items for the sprint.
That one product manager who posted a TikTok of her working by the pool has completely distorted people's view of what WFH is.
That one product manager who posted a TikTok of her working by the pool has completely distorted people's view of what WFH is.
> Some people had young children that didn't understand that "you can't bother mommy or daddy right now" and it was a constant fight.
One of the tech companies where I live had a problem where a lot of parents who got to WFH went on to cancel their daycare. They thought they'd save a lot of money by watching the kids while they worked.
Companies were really lenient about kids at home for a while when daycares were frequently closed due to COVID. Some people saw this and thought it was an invitation to have their kids home all the time.
It went about as well as you'd expect.
One of the tech companies where I live had a problem where a lot of parents who got to WFH went on to cancel their daycare. They thought they'd save a lot of money by watching the kids while they worked.
Companies were really lenient about kids at home for a while when daycares were frequently closed due to COVID. Some people saw this and thought it was an invitation to have their kids home all the time.
It went about as well as you'd expect.
It shouldn't take me an hour and 30 minutes in congested, underbuilt roads to drive 20 miles into the office. Cities and their wealthy politically-connected commercial office building owners have had decades to fix this problem. No sympathy.
This! ^^^ The powers-that-be have watched commuter times and experiences go to shit and real estate costs skyrocket (forcing people to live further and further from offices) in the last 25 years. Best case, they've done nothing, completely ignoring people's concerns. Worst case, they've actively enabled this situation in order to support the local commercial and residential real estate markets.
Yep, when COVID hit, my commute was 2.5 hours each way, totaling an average of 5 hours in the car every day. Once I got a taste of WFH I decided I'm never going back to that hell. I'd love to be able to afford to live close to the office, but I'm not rich enough to have a similar home in that location, and am not willing to move my family into a shoebox-sized townhome just for a short commute.
Weird thing is, you'd think Google+Meta would have enough pull to fix this in areas like SF Bay because they could literally build their own city and wreck the entire Bay Area economy...
They actually did try (Facebook has shuttles everywhere, and tried to rebuild the decommissioned passenger railway near US-84), but economic concerns like layoffs, etc. ended up taking priority.
The main issue is it takes like 10-20 years of concerted effort in the US to approve/build a bridge, and nobody except the government is willing to wait that long. This is mostly a political problem.
The main issue is it takes like 10-20 years of concerted effort in the US to approve/build a bridge, and nobody except the government is willing to wait that long. This is mostly a political problem.
Ignoring the shuttles which I don't think conclusively illustrate your point; Google has for years threatened to develop land into homes in San Jose so workers can choose to live closer, with the idea of doing exactly what OP suggests, but like so many Google projects, never seems to pan out:
> https://www.fastcompany.com/90978855/googles-plan-to-build-1...
> https://www.fastcompany.com/90978855/googles-plan-to-build-1...
When we bought our home in the Bay Area in 2017, the San Jose offices Google planned on building were on all of the brochures. I was convinced that if the city is giving the incentives and Google is buying up so much property that it must be just a matter of time. I learned it’s not that simple.
The problem is your office is 20 miles from your workplace.
20 miles is more than the entire length of Seattle. Heck it is more than the entire width of the Seattle Metro area (western most tip of Seattle heading straight east until it turns into farmland).
There should be sufficient housing stock such that people don't need to drive 20 miles to work!
20 miles is more than the entire length of Seattle. Heck it is more than the entire width of the Seattle Metro area (western most tip of Seattle heading straight east until it turns into farmland).
There should be sufficient housing stock such that people don't need to drive 20 miles to work!
You can only fit so many real houses in a given area, after which you're building high density housing and a lot of (I'd even argue most) people don't want to live in.
Public transport is key, especially trains that can bypass traffic at high speeds. In my city in Australia I live about 25km out from the CBD, but I can get there in under 30 minutes via train if I ever need to - it works very well and I don't have to live in a tiny shoebox on top of 100 other people.
Public transport is key, especially trains that can bypass traffic at high speeds. In my city in Australia I live about 25km out from the CBD, but I can get there in under 30 minutes via train if I ever need to - it works very well and I don't have to live in a tiny shoebox on top of 100 other people.
Cute that you think a person can just move house when they get a new job.
Historically that is what people did.
When tenure at a job was 20+ years, and a house could be paid off in 10 years, it made a ton of sense.
The fact that such an idea is absurd now is not because the idea itself is absurd, but because how we have structured our economy is absurd.
People shouldn't be wasting their lives commuting.
In older books they have kids and the dad coming back home to eat lunch together! Heck I have friends who grew up in countries where 20-30 years ago that was still the norm.
When tenure at a job was 20+ years, and a house could be paid off in 10 years, it made a ton of sense.
The fact that such an idea is absurd now is not because the idea itself is absurd, but because how we have structured our economy is absurd.
People shouldn't be wasting their lives commuting.
In older books they have kids and the dad coming back home to eat lunch together! Heck I have friends who grew up in countries where 20-30 years ago that was still the norm.
indeed. But in the short term, we gotta do what we gotta do. Despite the RTO mandates, no one in power seems interested in making walkable communities to make the commute easier, nor anything else involving semi-efficient public transportation. I am already fortunate enough to live in a house, I'm not multiplying my rent by 2x+ and reducing my QoL by 3x+ just to satisfy some real estate owners (not that I have an in-office job right now).
Some people prefer not to live in a dense urban environment. It's cool when you're young and single. It sucks when you have a family.
It doesn't, it's specific per person
And the lack of housing is entirely self-inflicted by locals in most US cities. There's no shadowy conspiracy; people have just spent decades opposing even the most basic new construction.
It's not quite so simple.
Another thing that's happened is that all the good jobs in many industries have hyper-concentrated into a small number of locations. There's plenty of space to live available in many "main street" towns, but not necessarily anywhere nearby to work if you do choose to live there.
My own city (Chicago) does have new construction, but it can't possibly keep up with demand from people moving into the city, because all the land is already full of lower-density housing, and you can't replace half a city block's worth of two- and three-flat dwellings with a modern high rise without first getting all the people who already live there to move out. Which, best case scenario, takes time. So instead most the new construction consists of replacing 130 year old 2- and 3-flat residences with luxury single-family homes, because nimbyism or now, reducing housing density is just more economically feasible. All it takes is one wealthy family buying one lot of land, and there area lot more individual lots up for sale than there are contiguous blocks of eight.
Another thing that's happened is that all the good jobs in many industries have hyper-concentrated into a small number of locations. There's plenty of space to live available in many "main street" towns, but not necessarily anywhere nearby to work if you do choose to live there.
My own city (Chicago) does have new construction, but it can't possibly keep up with demand from people moving into the city, because all the land is already full of lower-density housing, and you can't replace half a city block's worth of two- and three-flat dwellings with a modern high rise without first getting all the people who already live there to move out. Which, best case scenario, takes time. So instead most the new construction consists of replacing 130 year old 2- and 3-flat residences with luxury single-family homes, because nimbyism or now, reducing housing density is just more economically feasible. All it takes is one wealthy family buying one lot of land, and there area lot more individual lots up for sale than there are contiguous blocks of eight.
> and you can't replace half a city block's worth of two- and three-flat dwellings
It is funny because here in the Puget Sound, if we had two and three flat dwellings that would be a major improvement over the bullshit we have now. Like seriously, 3 story flats would be a dream for density and alleviate much of the area's high house prices.
Unfortunately due to a confluence of factors there are only two types of "density" being built around here:
1. Giant apartment blocks owned by multi-national investment firms where the rent goes up by LOL each year that exist just to drain money out of the community.
2. Awful 4 story townhouses that are inappropriate for anyone who has small children, or knees that aren't perfect.
Also because of reasons, the townhomes don't have usable yards (they have to be set in the lot such a way that neither the front or back are usable), and they can only be built in a few designated "upzoned" areas.
Zoning changes are slowly supposed to come that upzone[1] more and more of the city, but if building actual usable housing isn't even possible, just pure zoning changes aren't enough.
[1] Where upzoned means not just SFH, but still most of the city will be zoned SFH only.
It is funny because here in the Puget Sound, if we had two and three flat dwellings that would be a major improvement over the bullshit we have now. Like seriously, 3 story flats would be a dream for density and alleviate much of the area's high house prices.
Unfortunately due to a confluence of factors there are only two types of "density" being built around here:
1. Giant apartment blocks owned by multi-national investment firms where the rent goes up by LOL each year that exist just to drain money out of the community.
2. Awful 4 story townhouses that are inappropriate for anyone who has small children, or knees that aren't perfect.
Also because of reasons, the townhomes don't have usable yards (they have to be set in the lot such a way that neither the front or back are usable), and they can only be built in a few designated "upzoned" areas.
Zoning changes are slowly supposed to come that upzone[1] more and more of the city, but if building actual usable housing isn't even possible, just pure zoning changes aren't enough.
[1] Where upzoned means not just SFH, but still most of the city will be zoned SFH only.
That almost entirely due to current zoning that separates commercial and residential into separate districts, and severely restricts density of residential housing in favor of sprawling single family homes.
RTO failed in NYC as well.
>drive
There is your problem. Personal automobiles aren't a feasible method of transportation past a certain population density.
There is your problem. Personal automobiles aren't a feasible method of transportation past a certain population density.
Buses also are useless. Thry routinely waste you hours due to their slowness and inconsistency.
The choices really are two: subway (or any dedicated rail thing) or car.
The choices really are two: subway (or any dedicated rail thing) or car.
Buses can be very dependable and cheaper than rail if they run in dedicated bus lanes.
You’re right that they aren’t much use if they get stuck in the same traffic as everyone else.
You’re right that they aren’t much use if they get stuck in the same traffic as everyone else.
Not many places have room for an extra lane that is only used a tiny percentage of the time
That "tiny percentage of the time" is roughly once every 15 minutes when done well, and transports (in my city) roughly 150 people during rush hour.
Every bus lane you build is ~800 cars you don't have to deal with in traffic, assuming an approximately two hour rush hour
Every bus lane you build is ~800 cars you don't have to deal with in traffic, assuming an approximately two hour rush hour
Buses are only slow and inconsistent because of cars.
Exactly, a bus that doesn't have its own lane is a failure, as they get stuck in traffic it'll always strictly slower than cars. So people—if they can help it—drive cars, making more traffic, making buses slower, causing people to prefer more cars...
While if they run in dedicated lanes there is a counterbalance: the more people drive the worse traffic is, making the bus a comparatively better option, making people drive less... :)
While if they run in dedicated lanes there is a counterbalance: the more people drive the worse traffic is, making the bus a comparatively better option, making people drive less... :)
Not true. In my city in sweden they underpay drivers, and don't want to pay for them to do the bus driving course. So they have no drivers… so busses don't show up. So when they show up they might already be full.
beyond lack of dedicated lanes, the schedules in L.A. are just terrible. Most run hourly and don't really run late.
Buses are great as long as providing a good level of service is a priority for transportation planners.
Buses utilize the same roads/infrastructure the personal cars do which is a huge advantage for scaling. Subway/rail requires dedicated rights of way, are very expensive to scale, require much more money for the smaller/less used end product.
Or get this, a bike (in case you live under ~10 km away). Just rolls the gym hours into the commute for double efficiency, and you can be always on time since traffic can't really affect you.
I bike every day to work because I finally live in a place where there's bike paths/roads almost everywhere there's car roads.
I would never dare to do so where I lived before: I'd almost certainly be a blob of blood and guts splattered on the road by now.
It's infuriating how little thought is given to anything that is not a road for The Car. Billions of taxpayer money spent on massive road construction and repair but god forbid we build bike paths for 1/20th of the cost and 1/100th of the upkeep.
I would never dare to do so where I lived before: I'd almost certainly be a blob of blood and guts splattered on the road by now.
It's infuriating how little thought is given to anything that is not a road for The Car. Billions of taxpayer money spent on massive road construction and repair but god forbid we build bike paths for 1/20th of the cost and 1/100th of the upkeep.
The majority of people can't rely on biking. They're too old, too fat, the weather is bad, or too hot, or too cold, they're going too far, or they have to take two kids somewhere and pick up groceries, etc.
If biking works for you, where you are, great. But it's at best a pretty small part of the solution.
If biking works for you, where you are, great. But it's at best a pretty small part of the solution.
You're looking at it wrong. The mere fact that you have to chauffer your kids around everywhere until they're old enough to drive is a consequence of the fact that everything revolves around the car, as is the fact that you have to shop on a big box 10 miles away instead of walking 5mins to the store.
In the Netherlands kids bike everywhere with their friends, because it's safe and comfortable to do so. If they want to play sports they grab their bikes and go, they don't have to sit in traffic for 45mins in the back of their parents SUV. The Netherlands also has some of the happiest children on earth according to studies. Go figure :)
In the Netherlands kids bike everywhere with their friends, because it's safe and comfortable to do so. If they want to play sports they grab their bikes and go, they don't have to sit in traffic for 45mins in the back of their parents SUV. The Netherlands also has some of the happiest children on earth according to studies. Go figure :)
glad the Netherlands are nice like that. I'm in Los Angeles and it's dangerous living downtown with kids. Even if things are walkable I would never let my theoretical kids walk around on the streets. There's a lot more than urban planning that needs to be fixed before a walkable city becomes a reality here.
Agreed on that point, but very few places in the US—safe or unsafe—are walkable. Even the safest upper middle class suburb is totally untraversable without a car. So the problem clearly isn't just crime.
And bring a change of clothes and find a shower at the office for when you show up all sweaty.
People seriously overestimate how sweaty you get if you use a tiny bit of antiperspirant and don't drive like a maniac.
You are seriously underestimating the amount of sweating a normal, healthy man does if he trained consistently for some time and his body learned to quickly adapt to minimal physical stress (heck, I sweat profusely even if I merely slowly walk). Let alone if there are any kinds of hills.
TIL, I've looked it up and apparently you're right. The more fit someone is, the more they sweat. That's so counterintuitive tbh, I would've thought that it would be the opposite since you don't need to strain as much, but I guess there must be some baseline energy use and more muscle mass equals more heating, plus a faster learned cooling response.
Ironically that makes cycling a much better choice for people who aren't fit. Finally something where being lazy gives you an advantage.
Ironically that makes cycling a much better choice for people who aren't fit. Finally something where being lazy gives you an advantage.
The better performance of a fit person is partly explained by more muscles (incl. heart), but a significant part of performance boost is the fact that body autoregulates (e.g. by sweating and keeping the temperature perfect for activity, instead of letting body overheat, which results in a performance drop) itself so much better.
Raising the heart rate much faster is also part of a better self-regulation of a fit person.
Raising the heart rate much faster is also part of a better self-regulation of a fit person.
Not really sure how this is possible unless there are dedicated bike paths that use different roads than what the cars use. Otherwise, bikes get stuck at intersections just like cars do except for the asshats that think traffic rules do not apply bicycles causing more problems. Dedicated paths are only slightly less logistically than rail to install after roads have already been in use.
There are dedicated bike paths, separate from cars. Where they cross each other, there are traffic controls. And, as I understand it, in Amsterdam at least, any collision between a car and a cyclist is automatically the car driver’s fault: so drivers are very careful.
These countries have been doing this for a long time.
These countries have been doing this for a long time.
I think they're right to complain that cities should be fixing that by building the public transportation more?
But that doesn't seem like what they're suggesting:
> congested, underbuilt roads
> congested, underbuilt roads
Or, heaven forbid, make living near office affordable.
ironically enough, if living near the office was affordable then there wouldn't be so many RTO mandates. Real estate are on their death throes trying to recover their tax deals over this
I'm not picky about the solution and of course it's a complex issue.
- If a safe, reliable bus or train went to and from close to my house to close to the office, I'd take it. Key is safe and reliable.
- If the roads were designed with enough capacity and planning in mind such that groups of vehicles are not stuck driving 15 MPH on a 70 MPH speed limit stretch of highway for 30 minutes or longer every day, that'd be fine.
- If zoning laws/tax laws/whatever were such that it would be easier to build away from yet close to city centers and have smaller or additional offices closer to where people live, that'd work for me.
- If city apartments were in reach costwise or even somehow subsidized by my employer in an equitable way (don't really know how that would look), and crime was not an issue, I would consider moving within walking distance of my workplace.
- If a safe, reliable bus or train went to and from close to my house to close to the office, I'd take it. Key is safe and reliable.
- If the roads were designed with enough capacity and planning in mind such that groups of vehicles are not stuck driving 15 MPH on a 70 MPH speed limit stretch of highway for 30 minutes or longer every day, that'd be fine.
- If zoning laws/tax laws/whatever were such that it would be easier to build away from yet close to city centers and have smaller or additional offices closer to where people live, that'd work for me.
- If city apartments were in reach costwise or even somehow subsidized by my employer in an equitable way (don't really know how that would look), and crime was not an issue, I would consider moving within walking distance of my workplace.
> If the roads were designed with enough capacity and planning in mind such that groups of vehicles are not stuck driving 15 MPH on a 70 MPH speed limit stretch of highway for 30 minutes or longer every day, that'd be fine.
If you build that, then more people see that there is a nice quick road between where they work and a place where they can buy a more affordable home. The road gains more commuters until the congestion returns.
Your other suggestions are more scalable. If housing is expensive, there should be more, denser housing. If commutes are long, we should be zoning such that houses can be near workplaces, and conversely workplaces can be near housing.
If you create pockets of higher density housing and workplaces, instead of only building large swaths of low density single-family residential, you can preserve the options to live in a city, a walkable town center, or a more quiet location, while still having dense enough groupings to make transit lines viable.
If you build that, then more people see that there is a nice quick road between where they work and a place where they can buy a more affordable home. The road gains more commuters until the congestion returns.
Your other suggestions are more scalable. If housing is expensive, there should be more, denser housing. If commutes are long, we should be zoning such that houses can be near workplaces, and conversely workplaces can be near housing.
If you create pockets of higher density housing and workplaces, instead of only building large swaths of low density single-family residential, you can preserve the options to live in a city, a walkable town center, or a more quiet location, while still having dense enough groupings to make transit lines viable.
Unfortunately it’s not possible to build roads “with enough capacity” in major cities. Beyond a certain point, the geometry of space does not allow enough capacity to satisfy the needs, because growing the roads by enough to have capacity requires spreading things further apart, which means more traffic must go further, which means more cars on the road, and more lanes means more merging and lane-changing, which slows things down further.
I'm just curious, what about your local bus and/or train is not safe? Do you mean it could crash at any moment? Or it is usually full of unsavoury characters?
Homeless people in my area (LA). I don't blame them individually at all, it's a societal issue that some at best got kicked out of their living spaces when rent doubled in the last 5 years. Or at worst were fed fentanyl and had their lives ruined just to line the pockets of some skeevy "medical company" (thank goodness they are having the books thrown at them).
But regardless of fault, they aren't mostly just some people down on luck that at best ask for some change like in my childhood. enough are dangerous, unpredictable, and mentally unwell that public transportation is a non-trivial risk here.
But regardless of fault, they aren't mostly just some people down on luck that at best ask for some change like in my childhood. enough are dangerous, unpredictable, and mentally unwell that public transportation is a non-trivial risk here.
Probably the latter. There doesn't tend to be good enforcement of social norms and etiquette on public transit.
I don't have a local bus or train, what I provided were examples.
> Do you mean it could crash at any moment? Or it is usually full of unsavoury characters?
Both. Buses/trains should be secure places and properly maintained at all times.
> Do you mean it could crash at any moment? Or it is usually full of unsavoury characters?
Both. Buses/trains should be secure places and properly maintained at all times.
That's the strategy. The places calling for return to office are mostly doing it to thin the herd. Make people voluntarily leave.
I wonder how many zombie firms we’re going to see fall apart when there is a significant economic downturn turn. A lot of companies calling for RTO are gutting morale and filling their halls with many contributors that are only too eager to leave the moment they can.
Selectively filing your company with dispassionate, or desperate devs may not be a good long term plan
Selectively filing your company with dispassionate, or desperate devs may not be a good long term plan
Give me my own office and flexible hours. That’s what I have at home.
Don't forget access to a fridge full of food that you picked, and a separate space to prepare it for lunch if you choose to do so.
My fav perk is having clean toilet and not shared with the people who don't understand why that brush is there on the side. Well maybe they know but they might also be super important managers who don't have time to be decent and not having time to wash hands because they have to make a dump and have 30 sec to get to the next meeting to shake hands firmly to assert dominance.
:D
:D
the number of bad bathroom hygiene at my current workplace makes me very glad to be living right across the street where i can go use the facilities whenever i please in the peace and quiet of my own bathroom.
underrated perk for sure!
underrated perk for sure!
Ironically I like the shared toilets because they are cleaned daily and I can get away with cleaning mine at home a little less frequently.
For all the talk about the environment, there are no incentives for companies to reduce commutes. We’re still at only 7% percent of EV cars in the US. Our freeways are packed with gas guzzling engines pumping out smog during rush hours. Reducing the number of commuters is an easy environmental win.
Is this really the case? I've seen countless companies pull their employees back to the office, either full time or part time. With the economy slowing, I don't see that workers will have much say in it.
Unpopular opinion: Being an extrovert but living alone and working thirty feet from your bedroom is hell.
_Companies_ largely don't need people to be in-office, but if _you_ need to be in an office setting, why not find a coworking space?
given the current economy, you don't always have a choice in what environment you want to work for. Some RTO as a compromise for not finding good remote work, so I'm sure it goes the other way around, especially in a non-tech hub.
[deleted]
For the longest time, we tech workers have convinced ourselves we're special. We believe we can act on our own behalf against our employer on equal footing. We start to believe in the myth of meritocracy.
Remember the "Day in the Life" vidoes? When was the last time you saw someone showing their amazing workspace, the free food, the amentities and all that? A few years ago they were everywhere. Now? Nowhere.
We are now in permanent layoff culture. Some of us still believe this is companies trimming the fat. It is not. It is wage suppression. If you get rid of 5% of your staff and just make the remaining 95% do what the 5% were doing then you've saved money. Even better, the reamining 95% won't be asking for or demanding raises. After all, aren't you luck to have your job?
But severance packages cost money. You know what's cheaper? Return to office mandates. A certain percentage of people will quit. That's a cheap layoff.
Now some of you think your WFH status is safe. You may even take a pay cut to continue WFH (even though it's objectively cheaper to employ people remotely).
Trust me when I tell you that the flood waters are rising. You're just temporarily on the high ground. Your remote status won't last. For a handful it might but for the vast majority, you will be faced with the choice of losing your job or going back to the office.
This is more wage suppression. It is employers forcing their will on you so they can walk around the cubicle farm and see what you're doing. It's the compliance of having you there regardless of whether you need to be or not.
As a tech worker, you are just like any other worker. You are not immune. The only effective counter is to act collectively with your fellow employees. Unfortunately we've spent the last 50+ years completely dismantling any kind of collectivism.
Remember the "Day in the Life" vidoes? When was the last time you saw someone showing their amazing workspace, the free food, the amentities and all that? A few years ago they were everywhere. Now? Nowhere.
We are now in permanent layoff culture. Some of us still believe this is companies trimming the fat. It is not. It is wage suppression. If you get rid of 5% of your staff and just make the remaining 95% do what the 5% were doing then you've saved money. Even better, the reamining 95% won't be asking for or demanding raises. After all, aren't you luck to have your job?
But severance packages cost money. You know what's cheaper? Return to office mandates. A certain percentage of people will quit. That's a cheap layoff.
Now some of you think your WFH status is safe. You may even take a pay cut to continue WFH (even though it's objectively cheaper to employ people remotely).
Trust me when I tell you that the flood waters are rising. You're just temporarily on the high ground. Your remote status won't last. For a handful it might but for the vast majority, you will be faced with the choice of losing your job or going back to the office.
This is more wage suppression. It is employers forcing their will on you so they can walk around the cubicle farm and see what you're doing. It's the compliance of having you there regardless of whether you need to be or not.
As a tech worker, you are just like any other worker. You are not immune. The only effective counter is to act collectively with your fellow employees. Unfortunately we've spent the last 50+ years completely dismantling any kind of collectivism.
> For the longest time, we tech workers have convinced ourselves we're special
Because we are. In the sense that we own the means of production: our education and experience are the tools we take with us wherever we go. We own the process of (for example) software development like the craftspeople of old used to own production processes of material things.
We can dictate terms, because when we walk away, we take our workshops with us. The laptops and networks and all the infra any tech company owns/maintains, these are simply interchangeable shells.
The RTO struggle is incidental here; what really threatens our productive autonomy are the nascent AI tools, where big capital again threatens to hold a new generation of tools captive. If we're not careful, what has played out over the course of the Industrial Revolution (fragmentation of workflows, despecialization into piece work, transfer of ownership of tools, etc) will happen again in the Information Age.
Because we are. In the sense that we own the means of production: our education and experience are the tools we take with us wherever we go. We own the process of (for example) software development like the craftspeople of old used to own production processes of material things.
We can dictate terms, because when we walk away, we take our workshops with us. The laptops and networks and all the infra any tech company owns/maintains, these are simply interchangeable shells.
The RTO struggle is incidental here; what really threatens our productive autonomy are the nascent AI tools, where big capital again threatens to hold a new generation of tools captive. If we're not careful, what has played out over the course of the Industrial Revolution (fragmentation of workflows, despecialization into piece work, transfer of ownership of tools, etc) will happen again in the Information Age.
It's an asymmetric relationship between companies and (your example) software engineers.
One side, the software engineers, can withhold their labor or sell it to somebody else. Nobody is irreplaceable. Large companies in particular have spare capacity to replace you if what you do is actually important enough. A lot of the time, withholding your labor is simply an opportunity cost to the employer.
The employer on the other hand has the threat of violence to coerce you. Without a job, we lose shelter, food, transportation, health insurance, schools for our children and so on.
You, as an employee, are an inconvenience to the employer. They want to replace you with an automated system that doesn't leave, doesn't require pay raises, is predictable and so on. And sure, for now, an AI system can't replace a software engineer. I suspect it won't be able to for a very long time. But the jobs around you will disappear. The flood waters are rising.
Your relationship with your employer is adversarial. If they could get rid of you they would. Currently they can't. That's all that's going on.
One side, the software engineers, can withhold their labor or sell it to somebody else. Nobody is irreplaceable. Large companies in particular have spare capacity to replace you if what you do is actually important enough. A lot of the time, withholding your labor is simply an opportunity cost to the employer.
The employer on the other hand has the threat of violence to coerce you. Without a job, we lose shelter, food, transportation, health insurance, schools for our children and so on.
You, as an employee, are an inconvenience to the employer. They want to replace you with an automated system that doesn't leave, doesn't require pay raises, is predictable and so on. And sure, for now, an AI system can't replace a software engineer. I suspect it won't be able to for a very long time. But the jobs around you will disappear. The flood waters are rising.
Your relationship with your employer is adversarial. If they could get rid of you they would. Currently they can't. That's all that's going on.
>The employer on the other hand has the threat of violence to coerce you. Without a job, we lose shelter, food, transportation, health insurance, schools for our children and so on.
This is where your script falls apart. We generally have the ability to start our own business with our skills.
This is where your script falls apart. We generally have the ability to start our own business with our skills.
> We are now in permanent layoff culture. Some of us still believe this is companies trimming the fat. It is not. It is wage suppression.
Speaking in games, they pretty much trimmed as much fat as they could with every loophole in the book. But they still want to make bigger games that compete with Fortnite instead of more focused reelases.
There's no fat left to trim so they are in fact shutting down studios and cancelling projects. I'm sure the trillionaire companies will survive no matter what, but games are genuinely in a bad spot right now.
>As a tech worker, you are just like any other worker. You are not immune. The only effective counter is to act collectively with your fellow employees.
fundamentally, the very reason companies kept hoarding tech workers is because in fact, yesterday's employee can be come toorrow's competitor. Gabe newell walked away from Microsoft and made a gaming empire Microsoft could only dream of. Jobs walked away from apple more than once and helped found an industry disrupting company that forever transformed a medium of movies ruled by Disney for decades prior. And likewise, a dispute in Disney animation created their biggest competitor in that new space, a competitor very clearly fueled by spite. Dozens of stories like that
In the 00's, the biggest fear of the big tech companies was poaching. Clearly in the 2020's past critical mass they care more about making number go up. The cycle will repeat and those companies will remember why hey at one point colluded among one another to make anti-poaching clauses.
Speaking in games, they pretty much trimmed as much fat as they could with every loophole in the book. But they still want to make bigger games that compete with Fortnite instead of more focused reelases.
There's no fat left to trim so they are in fact shutting down studios and cancelling projects. I'm sure the trillionaire companies will survive no matter what, but games are genuinely in a bad spot right now.
>As a tech worker, you are just like any other worker. You are not immune. The only effective counter is to act collectively with your fellow employees.
fundamentally, the very reason companies kept hoarding tech workers is because in fact, yesterday's employee can be come toorrow's competitor. Gabe newell walked away from Microsoft and made a gaming empire Microsoft could only dream of. Jobs walked away from apple more than once and helped found an industry disrupting company that forever transformed a medium of movies ruled by Disney for decades prior. And likewise, a dispute in Disney animation created their biggest competitor in that new space, a competitor very clearly fueled by spite. Dozens of stories like that
In the 00's, the biggest fear of the big tech companies was poaching. Clearly in the 2020's past critical mass they care more about making number go up. The cycle will repeat and those companies will remember why hey at one point colluded among one another to make anti-poaching clauses.
"Remember the "Day in the Life" vidoes? When was the last time you saw someone showing their amazing workspace, the free food, the amentities and all that? A few years ago they were everywhere. Now? Nowhere."
I do remember! Also I was always wondering where those people worked. Perhaps those videos were from FAANG companies ... but most of the developers never worked there! Point is that those videos were not representing anything.
I do remember! Also I was always wondering where those people worked. Perhaps those videos were from FAANG companies ... but most of the developers never worked there! Point is that those videos were not representing anything.
I think the reality is that demand for good software developers is only going to grow. This has been the trend since the 1960's and it shows no signs of reversing. There have been periods of slowdown and reversal (e.g. dot com bust) but the trend continues.
Good software developers are a scarce resource. There's a lot that goes into the mix of making one. AI can't replace them yet. They're critical for the success of many businesses.
We were in layoff mode but that seems to be reversing. Even if we see a bit more ups and downs the trend of more technology everywhere and the increasing demand for building and maintaining all that technology is not going away. The only real game changer is AI but when AI replaces all good software developers it has replaced everyone in the job market and we have bigger worries if we're even still around.
Good software developers are a scarce resource. There's a lot that goes into the mix of making one. AI can't replace them yet. They're critical for the success of many businesses.
We were in layoff mode but that seems to be reversing. Even if we see a bit more ups and downs the trend of more technology everywhere and the increasing demand for building and maintaining all that technology is not going away. The only real game changer is AI but when AI replaces all good software developers it has replaced everyone in the job market and we have bigger worries if we're even still around.
Disagree.
With savings comes extra cash.
And extra cash can only sit on the sidelines for so long.
Until company’s are lured once again in to making bigger, larger, scalable bets.
You need engineers to explore new hypotheses, to drive growth, to explore these new possible markets.
Greed always returns. Idle money, stagnant growth helps no one.
You don’t scale a company with savings. You scale up by spending.
With savings comes extra cash.
And extra cash can only sit on the sidelines for so long.
Until company’s are lured once again in to making bigger, larger, scalable bets.
You need engineers to explore new hypotheses, to drive growth, to explore these new possible markets.
Greed always returns. Idle money, stagnant growth helps no one.
You don’t scale a company with savings. You scale up by spending.
This is what I call Blind Faith in the Free Market.
First, there's no such thing as a "free" market. Any robust market requires strong regulation and thus a strong government. So for a labor market, you need things like workers rights for the entire thing to work, even for the companies.
Second, companies collude to dilute labor power. Years ago in tech it was the Steve Jobs anti-poaching collusion case [1]. Now, every company is in permanent layoff mode. Notice how pretty much every company decided to start doing that at about the same time? You ever wonder why?
Tech companies have basically adopted the Corporate America model of "up or out" culture. It's incredibly toxic. It even goes against Google's findings that the most important aspect to team productivity is psychological safety [2].
Lastly, it has long been observed that the tendency is for profits to decrease over time [3]. The only way to counter this is by cutting costs, raising prices or growing a market. The last one is incredibly difficult. The first two are incredibly easy, at least in the short term.
It is cheaper to constantly churn 5% of your employees if that suppresses the cost of the other 95%.
[1]: https://money.cnn.com/2014/08/11/technology/silicon-valley-p...
[2]: https://archive.is/AFU9o
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit...
First, there's no such thing as a "free" market. Any robust market requires strong regulation and thus a strong government. So for a labor market, you need things like workers rights for the entire thing to work, even for the companies.
Second, companies collude to dilute labor power. Years ago in tech it was the Steve Jobs anti-poaching collusion case [1]. Now, every company is in permanent layoff mode. Notice how pretty much every company decided to start doing that at about the same time? You ever wonder why?
Tech companies have basically adopted the Corporate America model of "up or out" culture. It's incredibly toxic. It even goes against Google's findings that the most important aspect to team productivity is psychological safety [2].
Lastly, it has long been observed that the tendency is for profits to decrease over time [3]. The only way to counter this is by cutting costs, raising prices or growing a market. The last one is incredibly difficult. The first two are incredibly easy, at least in the short term.
It is cheaper to constantly churn 5% of your employees if that suppresses the cost of the other 95%.
[1]: https://money.cnn.com/2014/08/11/technology/silicon-valley-p...
[2]: https://archive.is/AFU9o
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit...
>First, there's no such thing as a "free" market.
Sure, economic theory is just that. There's no true free market and no true socialism.
But I think a more charitable interpretation of GP's comment is "the market is free enough that customers can make a product successful if it makes their lives easier". Regulation in tech aren't so high that a few people can't make the next Whatsapp, if the market resonates with that.
>Second, companies collude to dilute labor power.
Yes, but ultimately new companies make sure they can't ever truly control the market. In some ways that is another sign of a "free (enough) market". There are more than 6 compnaies with money to throw at a good idea, and the current publishing mechanisms make it easy to ship.
>Notice how pretty much every company decided to start doing that at about the same time? You ever wonder why?
external stimulus. Money isn't free, R&D costs aren't easy to write off for taxes. investors are pulling out and putting money into savings. It's the perfect time for layoffs when you need to do a pseudo paycut, especially when it's hard right now for a new company to start scaling up (due to said investors pulling out).
From there, sure. There's a lot of trend chasing. Google does something and they know their stuff, clearly our much different company must follow suit!
>Lastly, it has long been observed that the tendency is for profits to decrease over time
sure, tech stabilizes and customers won't stay and spend forever. Very few products can grow year on year on their own merit.
Companies in the 2010s were indeed in "grow market mode", which is why they were hiring for every blue sky idea they had under the sun. That's obviously stopped, but doesn't prevent leaner startups from trying.
Sure, economic theory is just that. There's no true free market and no true socialism.
But I think a more charitable interpretation of GP's comment is "the market is free enough that customers can make a product successful if it makes their lives easier". Regulation in tech aren't so high that a few people can't make the next Whatsapp, if the market resonates with that.
>Second, companies collude to dilute labor power.
Yes, but ultimately new companies make sure they can't ever truly control the market. In some ways that is another sign of a "free (enough) market". There are more than 6 compnaies with money to throw at a good idea, and the current publishing mechanisms make it easy to ship.
>Notice how pretty much every company decided to start doing that at about the same time? You ever wonder why?
external stimulus. Money isn't free, R&D costs aren't easy to write off for taxes. investors are pulling out and putting money into savings. It's the perfect time for layoffs when you need to do a pseudo paycut, especially when it's hard right now for a new company to start scaling up (due to said investors pulling out).
From there, sure. There's a lot of trend chasing. Google does something and they know their stuff, clearly our much different company must follow suit!
>Lastly, it has long been observed that the tendency is for profits to decrease over time
sure, tech stabilizes and customers won't stay and spend forever. Very few products can grow year on year on their own merit.
Companies in the 2010s were indeed in "grow market mode", which is why they were hiring for every blue sky idea they had under the sun. That's obviously stopped, but doesn't prevent leaner startups from trying.
> But severance packages cost money. You know what's cheaper? Return to office mandates. A certain percentage of people will quit. That's a cheap layoff.
Depending on who decides to leave, it could be a VERY expensive layoff.
Depending on who decides to leave, it could be a VERY expensive layoff.
> Now some of you think your WFH status is safe. You may even take a pay cut to continue WFH (even though it's objectively cheaper to employ people remotely). Trust me when I tell you that the flood waters are rising. You're just temporarily on the high ground. Your remote status won't last.
Alternately, I am concerned that a company who has seen office work go home can just as easily see it go offshore at vastly reduced cost.
Alternately, I am concerned that a company who has seen office work go home can just as easily see it go offshore at vastly reduced cost.
>When was the last time you saw someone showing their amazing workspace, the free food, the amentities and all that? A few years ago they were everywhere. Now? Nowhere.
I have all that but I work at a prop firm and they're VERY secretive and compliance would fire my ass if they found out
I have all that but I work at a prop firm and they're VERY secretive and compliance would fire my ass if they found out
I would be interested to hear from Indian, Philipino or other off- near- shore locations. Is this “give me WFH or give me death” actually just USA/European entitlement and Chennai Devs will gleefully work in air-conditioned offices (hopefully not open plan cubicle hell but nicely designed “WeWork-like” places) and discover the turbo-charge of a co-located mission locked team?
Are we Western Devs about to learn a very hard lesson?
Are we Western Devs about to learn a very hard lesson?
Where I'm sitting in Europe (Austria) it's the opposite. We have to be in the office 2/3 days per week to "not loose contact with the colleagues" or because "we're all a team here", only because senior management said so without any logical arguments related to productivity.
And "give me death" is not an option since every company has normalized RTO here so there's nowhere to go as the tech market is weak here so fully FWH option is next to none existent, while the offshore offices I know in Eastern Europe and Asia are fully remote since they were always basically remote anyway being away from the mothership and the tech market there has boomed after the pandemic meaning they have to offer WFH to not loose their workers.
IMHO the offshoring countries are the real winners here.
And "give me death" is not an option since every company has normalized RTO here so there's nowhere to go as the tech market is weak here so fully FWH option is next to none existent, while the offshore offices I know in Eastern Europe and Asia are fully remote since they were always basically remote anyway being away from the mothership and the tech market there has boomed after the pandemic meaning they have to offer WFH to not loose their workers.
IMHO the offshoring countries are the real winners here.
Offshored work solves a very different problem. Typically they're being given lower-difficulty work where the quality of the developers and their specific qualifications are less important, so it's easy to co-locate a team of sufficient quality.
One of the advantages of US/European remote teams is that they can pull the most skilled personnel available from many different regions and have them all working together. When you force a team to be co-located, you weaken your talent pool.
Or, in other words: A high-performing team requires a group of: - motivated engineers - with the right skillsets - who can communicate effectively - and work together effectively and losing any of these three things will trash your team's throughput. It is hard to get all three, but especially hard when you hard-limit your team to a single city.
Outsourcing trades "with the right skillsets" (and to an extent "who can communicate effectively") for "cheaper" and "in the same location". This works just fine as long as you don't need serious skillsets, but is nowhere close to an effective replacement.
One of the advantages of US/European remote teams is that they can pull the most skilled personnel available from many different regions and have them all working together. When you force a team to be co-located, you weaken your talent pool.
Or, in other words: A high-performing team requires a group of: - motivated engineers - with the right skillsets - who can communicate effectively - and work together effectively and losing any of these three things will trash your team's throughput. It is hard to get all three, but especially hard when you hard-limit your team to a single city.
Outsourcing trades "with the right skillsets" (and to an extent "who can communicate effectively") for "cheaper" and "in the same location". This works just fine as long as you don't need serious skillsets, but is nowhere close to an effective replacement.
>Are we Western Devs about to learn a very hard lesson?
I'm sure off/nearshore folks will happily take any work corp america gives them. My company is still remote and we've expanded significantly in 'near shore' hiring.
Industry wide, we may well be setting ourselves up for a 'hard lesson'. Our nearshore devs are actually pretty productive. I'm not finding nearly the same amount of friction that I've seen working with offshore devs that are in significantly different time zones. I don't see how tech TC doesn't eventually 'equalize' more with the rest of the world.
For me personally, I've had some recent 'come to jesus' moments losing some elderly family members and my own health issues that make me realize I should be working to live, not living to work. My current company is remote. I do not see me going 'into office' to satisfy the arbitrary whims of management. I'm old enough and well established enough that I can pretty much do what I like without worrying too much about the repercussions for my 'career'
I'm sure off/nearshore folks will happily take any work corp america gives them. My company is still remote and we've expanded significantly in 'near shore' hiring.
Industry wide, we may well be setting ourselves up for a 'hard lesson'. Our nearshore devs are actually pretty productive. I'm not finding nearly the same amount of friction that I've seen working with offshore devs that are in significantly different time zones. I don't see how tech TC doesn't eventually 'equalize' more with the rest of the world.
For me personally, I've had some recent 'come to jesus' moments losing some elderly family members and my own health issues that make me realize I should be working to live, not living to work. My current company is remote. I do not see me going 'into office' to satisfy the arbitrary whims of management. I'm old enough and well established enough that I can pretty much do what I like without worrying too much about the repercussions for my 'career'
As someone who's lived through many, many, many cycles of offshoring and onshoring this is funny take.
We have at least 2 maybe even 3 full decades of businesses offshoring to cut costs, then the quality of the work they receive doesn't just plummet it burrows a hole through to the center of the Earth and keeps going. Then they onshore again, and everything eventually returns to normal.
Offshoring is a meme perpetuated by MBA's, and misery factories full of the "best and brightest" like ValueLabs - it doesn't work and we have decades of lived experience to prove it.
We have at least 2 maybe even 3 full decades of businesses offshoring to cut costs, then the quality of the work they receive doesn't just plummet it burrows a hole through to the center of the Earth and keeps going. Then they onshore again, and everything eventually returns to normal.
Offshoring is a meme perpetuated by MBA's, and misery factories full of the "best and brightest" like ValueLabs - it doesn't work and we have decades of lived experience to prove it.
This bullshit again?
Outsourcing is nothing new. Companies have been outsourcing jobs to cheaper locations for longer than I have been working. In fact, my first job was as cheap outsourced labor.
This comes and goes in waves, because outsourcing to cheaper locations have a lot of downsides too.
Outsourcing is nothing new. Companies have been outsourcing jobs to cheaper locations for longer than I have been working. In fact, my first job was as cheap outsourced labor.
This comes and goes in waves, because outsourcing to cheaper locations have a lot of downsides too.
it comes in waves, but it might be a longer wave given the pandemic forcing companies to actually get good remote work pipelines.
I definitely want to keep working at home. My workplace rebuilt all the cubicles to be half their previous size. Coincidentally, this was just as COVID started. Now we're required to work 2 days a week in the office. It's great to see people in person, but if you need to meet with someone in their cubicle, you're either going to be hanging out in the aisle or sitting very very close to them.
When someone says you must RTO to a place like San Francisco or Seattle just respond that you will require a 250% pay raise for real estate cost differences.
Might help change zoning policy in those cities too if managers and executives see that the entire local economy is basically an elaborate machine to funnel money to property owners with extra steps like employment.
Might help change zoning policy in those cities too if managers and executives see that the entire local economy is basically an elaborate machine to funnel money to property owners with extra steps like employment.
I was offered a job in San Francisco. For the same salary as my Michigan based job. And of course they wanted 100% in office.
They were confused when I rejected the offer.
They were confused when I rejected the offer.
would have been funnier to counter offer with 300% of the compensation they offered.
mikestew(1)
Working for the past 30 years, I've had the chance - like many others - to live the closed office times, then the open space extravaganza to finally the "work from home" era.
I've seen companies spend tens of millions in open space offices in the past decades and this was by far the greatest work killer of all time.
Many, if not most companies, self created this ridiculous situation to finally realize it was a complete failure at so many levels, all that was left was to justify it. From awful diners and mini restaurants to ridiculous spaces no one really uses unless they need to make a phone call - open concepts don't work and never will.
Now days the only thing I see are noise cancelling headsets, people leaving early and a complete lack of interaction.
For many, working from home just works. My setup here is now years ahead of what the office may offer...
I've seen companies spend tens of millions in open space offices in the past decades and this was by far the greatest work killer of all time.
Many, if not most companies, self created this ridiculous situation to finally realize it was a complete failure at so many levels, all that was left was to justify it. From awful diners and mini restaurants to ridiculous spaces no one really uses unless they need to make a phone call - open concepts don't work and never will.
Now days the only thing I see are noise cancelling headsets, people leaving early and a complete lack of interaction.
For many, working from home just works. My setup here is now years ahead of what the office may offer...
It's interesting to read the comments complaining about all the zoom/teams calls, not questioning or addressing why on earth we need that many zoom/teams calls.
Why would US companies continue to pay US wages for people at home when there are remote people much cheaper in south America and Europe ?
When I started my career in late 2018 and went fully remote in early 2020, a ton of folks said that the worst thing I could do as a junior software engineer was to work remotely.
Four years and a few promotions later, you couldn’t pay me extra to bring me back to the office. I like strict 9-5 work, and nothing can make me give up five hours of post-office daylight during the summer.
Four years and a few promotions later, you couldn’t pay me extra to bring me back to the office. I like strict 9-5 work, and nothing can make me give up five hours of post-office daylight during the summer.
My problem is that I quite like working with other people.
It’s really hard to build relationships with other human beings when not in the same physical location- sharing jokes, lunches, walks and just shouting across the room about the weird code change
.
It’s vital. Most large companies think that as they are hiring “the best from around the world” that leaving them around the world is fine. Look leaving people on different floors of the same building screws up team cohesion.
So from a certain standpoint, it does not matter. Companies have long ago chosen to cripple their productivity and WFH simply helps, but frankly it annoys me.
Get better at building and releasing great code. In the same office. Move people, pay them well. Or maybe I am wrong - maybe the extra cost to co-locate and do the job well is more than the loss of productivity by seperated teams
But I bet you the CEO of Crowdstrike is rethinking that idea right now
It’s vital. Most large companies think that as they are hiring “the best from around the world” that leaving them around the world is fine. Look leaving people on different floors of the same building screws up team cohesion.
So from a certain standpoint, it does not matter. Companies have long ago chosen to cripple their productivity and WFH simply helps, but frankly it annoys me.
Get better at building and releasing great code. In the same office. Move people, pay them well. Or maybe I am wrong - maybe the extra cost to co-locate and do the job well is more than the loss of productivity by seperated teams
But I bet you the CEO of Crowdstrike is rethinking that idea right now
>My problem is that I quite like working with other people.
Which is fine as long as you understand that the rest of us don't. Most of the push for back to the office is being pushed by extroverted people that miss being about to chat with people and not because of any results driven data.
Which is fine as long as you understand that the rest of us don't. Most of the push for back to the office is being pushed by extroverted people that miss being about to chat with people and not because of any results driven data.
Don’t think I am a hale and hearty sales lead. I crave quiet me time as much as the next. But the most productive times in a long and varied career have almost always involved a room with 3-5 other focused people. (That and being on my lonesome doing my own thing - which is great but less team work).
As for focusing on results - no thanks. Unless those in the hierarchy get to be judged on those same openly published metrics - no way.
As for focusing on results - no thanks. Unless those in the hierarchy get to be judged on those same openly published metrics - no way.
At least in my experience, while I am good at text/email communication: my co workers were not. I feel like being a full remote company crippled us in terms of engineering quality. We have more of a license to be left alone and that sucks when we actually do need to coordinate with our coworkers. Easier to just not coordinate and tune out the notifications.
All said, maybe it is a larger issue and working from the office is just addressing symptoms that are more apparent when going remote. Are we really missing out on those water cooler talks or is there a missing information/management role. I think of how I've had the conversations with other teams around the occasional virtual water cooler "oh, you're building a microservice to do that... so are we.... why are we building the same microservice?"
All said, maybe it is a larger issue and working from the office is just addressing symptoms that are more apparent when going remote. Are we really missing out on those water cooler talks or is there a missing information/management role. I think of how I've had the conversations with other teams around the occasional virtual water cooler "oh, you're building a microservice to do that... so are we.... why are we building the same microservice?"
People can be introvert and still enjoy lunch and coffee breaks with company. Please don't put blame on broad stereotypes like that.
"It’s really hard to build relationships with other human beings when not in the same physical location- sharing jokes, lunches, walks and just shouting across the room about the weird code change "
see here's the thing that has me scratching my head. I talk to my coworkers WAY more now that we're not all just sitting in our offices or in the open work area with headphones on. and get this, I can screenshot! and screenshare! and link to code!!! it's wild. communicating via analog audio signals produced by forcing air across our meat pipes is positively barbarian in comparison.
Yknow something else I just realized? Now when i want to tell someone a command, I can literally just - send them `foo bar /srv/company/* --snafucate --no-fubar` instead of "ok so foo bar - no wait, sorry, backspace that, it's foo space bar, not foobar. Ok now /srv/company/*. Sorry backspace that I mean literally the star character. Ok now dash dash snafucate. Now dash dash no fubar. No sorry not --no fubar it's dash dash no dash fubar. ok yeah hit enter. oh sorry sudo -i -u companyuser first." The alternative to that exchange of course being to type on their cheesy keyboard. No thanks, I don't want to cross-contaminate our keyboard microbiomes, mine is just the way I like it.
I dunno. I grew up on IRC and MSN and stuff. So slack is just IRC with inlined GIF memes and mini-memes (emojis) that you can comment onto literally any message. Sounds like a pure win to me.
see here's the thing that has me scratching my head. I talk to my coworkers WAY more now that we're not all just sitting in our offices or in the open work area with headphones on. and get this, I can screenshot! and screenshare! and link to code!!! it's wild. communicating via analog audio signals produced by forcing air across our meat pipes is positively barbarian in comparison.
Yknow something else I just realized? Now when i want to tell someone a command, I can literally just - send them `foo bar /srv/company/* --snafucate --no-fubar` instead of "ok so foo bar - no wait, sorry, backspace that, it's foo space bar, not foobar. Ok now /srv/company/*. Sorry backspace that I mean literally the star character. Ok now dash dash snafucate. Now dash dash no fubar. No sorry not --no fubar it's dash dash no dash fubar. ok yeah hit enter. oh sorry sudo -i -u companyuser first." The alternative to that exchange of course being to type on their cheesy keyboard. No thanks, I don't want to cross-contaminate our keyboard microbiomes, mine is just the way I like it.
I dunno. I grew up on IRC and MSN and stuff. So slack is just IRC with inlined GIF memes and mini-memes (emojis) that you can comment onto literally any message. Sounds like a pure win to me.
>I talk to my coworkers WAY more now that we're not all just sitting in our offices or in the open work area with headphones on
it will ultimately vary on the workers. There were some people on slightly different teams but in close proximity pre-pandemic that I talked with every day (even planning some personal projects on the side). Then the pandemic came and I never heard from them again, despite technically being a ping away. my team slack channel during the pandemic was still faily lax, meanwhile the other team's slack channel went eerily silent.
maybe this will be a non-issue as more Gen Z workers grow up, but I definietly had a different experience from you.
it will ultimately vary on the workers. There were some people on slightly different teams but in close proximity pre-pandemic that I talked with every day (even planning some personal projects on the side). Then the pandemic came and I never heard from them again, despite technically being a ping away. my team slack channel during the pandemic was still faily lax, meanwhile the other team's slack channel went eerily silent.
maybe this will be a non-issue as more Gen Z workers grow up, but I definietly had a different experience from you.
> My problem is that I quite like working with other people. It’s really hard to build relationships with other human beings when not in the same physical location- sharing jokes, lunches, walks and just shouting across the room about the weird code change
I am a remote worker, and I quite like working with other people, too, which is why I do it. Walking and shouting don't really factor into it, but we do share plenty of jokes.
That is why I totally understand and agree with all of what you said, except for the part where you're shouting in a room, especially one in which others are trying to work, or worse, speak in an online meeting from their desk with shouting in the background. That seems pretty disruptive and inappropriate when you could just walk over, or better yet, send a message. To me, that behavior is tantamount to asserting that what you have to say is more important than everything everyone else is doing. If there's a fire, maybe it is.
To be sure, my coworkers and I are friends, but I have many more outside of work, and deeper friendships besides. Are you describing your conditions for amicably and effectively working with coworkers, or are you describing your conditions for making coworkers into your friends? Sometimes folks desire deeper work friendships as a substitute for friendships outside of work.
I am a remote worker, and I quite like working with other people, too, which is why I do it. Walking and shouting don't really factor into it, but we do share plenty of jokes.
That is why I totally understand and agree with all of what you said, except for the part where you're shouting in a room, especially one in which others are trying to work, or worse, speak in an online meeting from their desk with shouting in the background. That seems pretty disruptive and inappropriate when you could just walk over, or better yet, send a message. To me, that behavior is tantamount to asserting that what you have to say is more important than everything everyone else is doing. If there's a fire, maybe it is.
To be sure, my coworkers and I are friends, but I have many more outside of work, and deeper friendships besides. Are you describing your conditions for amicably and effectively working with coworkers, or are you describing your conditions for making coworkers into your friends? Sometimes folks desire deeper work friendships as a substitute for friendships outside of work.
>To me, that behavior is tantamount to asserting that what you have to say is more important than everything everyone else is doing. If there's a fire, maybe it is.
depends on your workplace. There were dedicated quiet rooms workers would go in when they really needed to focus. Meanwhile, being in the lounge was a sign for a more lax work period. You don't really get that social messaging, especially since some people never update their status, or worse yet are eternally "do not disturb".
>but I have many more outside of work, and deeper friendships besides...Sometimes folks desire deeper work friendships as a substitute for friendships outside of work.
I don't. Only thing harder than befriending remote coworkers is trying to keep up with flaky meetup members you see once and never again. If you didn't stay in physical contact with schoolgoers, I have no clue how men c. 2018+ actually make friends post college. Maybe if I played sports it'd be different.
but sure, if you could solve this conundrum (I've tried for some 6 years now) I could easily concede to remote work.
depends on your workplace. There were dedicated quiet rooms workers would go in when they really needed to focus. Meanwhile, being in the lounge was a sign for a more lax work period. You don't really get that social messaging, especially since some people never update their status, or worse yet are eternally "do not disturb".
>but I have many more outside of work, and deeper friendships besides...Sometimes folks desire deeper work friendships as a substitute for friendships outside of work.
I don't. Only thing harder than befriending remote coworkers is trying to keep up with flaky meetup members you see once and never again. If you didn't stay in physical contact with schoolgoers, I have no clue how men c. 2018+ actually make friends post college. Maybe if I played sports it'd be different.
but sure, if you could solve this conundrum (I've tried for some 6 years now) I could easily concede to remote work.
> You don't really get that social messaging, especially since some people never update their status, or worse yet are eternally "do not disturb".
My experience is, the "social messaging" isn't necessary there: you can just send a message via slack or what not, and wait for the recipient to reply. If they have notifications disabled, you can wait for them to come to a stopping point enough to check their messages and reply. After all, such a configuration is generally implemented to avoid the in-person or digital version of someone shouting for immediate attention.
> Only thing harder than befriending remote coworkers is trying to keep up with flaky meetup members you see once and never again
Having coworkers on friendly terms is nice, but it sounds like you might be falling into the trap I mentioned, of seeking deep friendship there, rather than outside of work. This misaligns incentives: whereas someone might want an RTO just so they can more easily befriend people (a captive audience, no less), coworkers might just want an amicable, effective working relationship, which can be had in-person or remotely. The latter is more important for a company to consider.
> if you could solve this conundrum (I've tried for some 6 years now)
Sure, I've solved it and don't mind helping you do the same! I don't know what all you've tried, so this list may duplicate some of your efforts:
- Go to one meetup consistently? It's unlikely that all of them have so much churn that you never see a single person twice after going several times.
- When you meet someone at a meetup, ask them questions that show you are genuinely interested in them as a person. If you want further friendship, ask them to hang out sometime later that week (yes, a play date). Take down their phone number, reach out.
- Ask them to hang out again, after you have hung out previously. Repeat this process.
- Repeat this process for many potential friends.
- Try Bumble BFF? The message here is that friendship is dating anyways, and you have to show someone you want to have the kind of relationship that you genuinely seek, and always be closing, and consider it a numbers game, because not everyone wants to be in a relationship.
My experience is, the "social messaging" isn't necessary there: you can just send a message via slack or what not, and wait for the recipient to reply. If they have notifications disabled, you can wait for them to come to a stopping point enough to check their messages and reply. After all, such a configuration is generally implemented to avoid the in-person or digital version of someone shouting for immediate attention.
> Only thing harder than befriending remote coworkers is trying to keep up with flaky meetup members you see once and never again
Having coworkers on friendly terms is nice, but it sounds like you might be falling into the trap I mentioned, of seeking deep friendship there, rather than outside of work. This misaligns incentives: whereas someone might want an RTO just so they can more easily befriend people (a captive audience, no less), coworkers might just want an amicable, effective working relationship, which can be had in-person or remotely. The latter is more important for a company to consider.
> if you could solve this conundrum (I've tried for some 6 years now)
Sure, I've solved it and don't mind helping you do the same! I don't know what all you've tried, so this list may duplicate some of your efforts:
- Go to one meetup consistently? It's unlikely that all of them have so much churn that you never see a single person twice after going several times.
- When you meet someone at a meetup, ask them questions that show you are genuinely interested in them as a person. If you want further friendship, ask them to hang out sometime later that week (yes, a play date). Take down their phone number, reach out.
- Ask them to hang out again, after you have hung out previously. Repeat this process.
- Repeat this process for many potential friends.
- Try Bumble BFF? The message here is that friendship is dating anyways, and you have to show someone you want to have the kind of relationship that you genuinely seek, and always be closing, and consider it a numbers game, because not everyone wants to be in a relationship.
It’s simply unrealistic to move people.
A local good developer would cost ~200k in SF, but to move me and my family would take at least 2x that (to compensate for my partner’s lost income), possibly more (so that I can catch up to peers who’ve been saving US salaries for 10+ years, so that I can buy a house in a reasonable time).
A local good developer would cost ~200k in SF, but to move me and my family would take at least 2x that (to compensate for my partner’s lost income), possibly more (so that I can catch up to peers who’ve been saving US salaries for 10+ years, so that I can buy a house in a reasonable time).
I'm the opposite from you. I would rather light my hair on fire than do anything in person with anyone on my team.
I was no less productive working from home during the pandemic, a metric I can back up with completed user stores and completed projects.
If you want to go back into the office then please, by all means, as that's clearly the place that you work better in, but don't force people who are less efficient in the office to come into the office.
I was no less productive working from home during the pandemic, a metric I can back up with completed user stores and completed projects.
If you want to go back into the office then please, by all means, as that's clearly the place that you work better in, but don't force people who are less efficient in the office to come into the office.
Ive seen it.
I see people take 25% pay cuts to have WFH/Flex hours.
I've done it and I've still made work friends. Heck, if it wasnt WFH, I would have been gone because there are closer places to work.
I see people take 25% pay cuts to have WFH/Flex hours.
I've done it and I've still made work friends. Heck, if it wasnt WFH, I would have been gone because there are closer places to work.
What type of work do you do?
This is an opinion piece, not a researched article.
just like every other RTO vs WFH article
I work in manufacturing, there is no wfh
They have given us fuck all for raises during a period of rampant inflation and now they want to take away the one good thing that covid-19 did for workers.
I'm not sure if you got the memo, but you need to jump jobs if you want more money. This goes triple if you're not a top 5% worker.
BLS has been tracking this number and it has skyrocketed in the last generation (Number of Jobs Held in a Lifetime): https://www.bls.gov/nls/questions-and-answers.htm
BLS has been tracking this number and it has skyrocketed in the last generation (Number of Jobs Held in a Lifetime): https://www.bls.gov/nls/questions-and-answers.htm
I must be missing something.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/nlsoy.pdf ("young baby boomers" age 18-56, years 1978-2020)
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/nlsyth.pdf ("older millenials" age 18-36, years 1998-2021)
The "Chart 1" in both of those seems to be almost the same logarithm and the 18-56 "baby boomer" chart at age 36 appears to be roughly the same number of jobs. It might even be slightly higher in the baby boomer chart at age 36.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/nlsoy.pdf ("young baby boomers" age 18-56, years 1978-2020)
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/nlsyth.pdf ("older millenials" age 18-36, years 1998-2021)
The "Chart 1" in both of those seems to be almost the same logarithm and the 18-56 "baby boomer" chart at age 36 appears to be roughly the same number of jobs. It might even be slightly higher in the baby boomer chart at age 36.
A period of rampant corporate profits
Never forget this - if this were "real" inflation and not corporate fuckery then their profits would be down.
In a real inflation, why would profits be down? If the company has any pricing power, they just increase the price. In fact, the definition of inflation is prices increases.
If it is just corporate profits the state and county sure piled on by increasing my property taxes 40% over the past 3 years. That's an extra $300 a month for me which is more than my car payment.
edit: changed country to county
edit: changed country to county
Did the value of your property also increase over that time period?
So the assessor says. But what does that have to do with how much tax reveneue the local government needs to operate?
yeah, almost entirely due to inflation, it isn't like I improved my home.
Median incomes have outpaced inflation over the last several years.
https://www.axios.com/2024/02/05/wages-outpacing-inflation
https://www.axios.com/2024/02/05/wages-outpacing-inflation
And at the same time people struggle to pay rent. Official inflation numbers doesn't correlate how 'median' earner spends its salary.
The rent-strugglers have the loudest voices... (and they're not "wrong" just skewing the media)
lies, damn lies, and statistics.
It's an oft-mentioned point in the last few yearss to focus on raw income and not on spending power. if you get 50% more pay but rent doubles, the vast majority of people would have less spending power. same with job numbers. "Unemployment is historically low!". meanwhile, gig and part time worked soard while full time jobs dipped.
In addition, you look further and realize how people who "gave up" after 2-3 months without an interview are not counted as "unemployed" and you realize there's a lot to break down, that no one is breaking down
It's an oft-mentioned point in the last few yearss to focus on raw income and not on spending power. if you get 50% more pay but rent doubles, the vast majority of people would have less spending power. same with job numbers. "Unemployment is historically low!". meanwhile, gig and part time worked soard while full time jobs dipped.
In addition, you look further and realize how people who "gave up" after 2-3 months without an interview are not counted as "unemployed" and you realize there's a lot to break down, that no one is breaking down
Indeed it's complicated, but BLS does count them as "discouraged":
https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/persons-not-...
https://www.bls.gov/cps/lfcharacteristics.htm#discouraged
BLS may not be perfect but they're not idiots and it's wildly better than other countries.
https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/persons-not-...
https://www.bls.gov/cps/lfcharacteristics.htm#discouraged
BLS may not be perfect but they're not idiots and it's wildly better than other countries.
Does the median earner when considering the entire country struggle to pay rent? Or is it just the median earner in certain extremely expensive metro areas that happen to get a lot of focus in the media because that's where the journalists live?
The numbers OP cites can be 100% accurate and reflective of reality while it is still also true that people in the Bay Area struggle to pay for housing.
The numbers OP cites can be 100% accurate and reflective of reality while it is still also true that people in the Bay Area struggle to pay for housing.
There is every chance that income is a multi-modal distribution, and thus one should not talk of a single median.
However, the person to whom I was replying used cheap and not-so-cheerful language to suggest that it was possible to talk about this en masse. Assuming that to be reasonable, I replied with an en masse response.
Certainly if you break it down at the county level, I expect you'd find multiple different patterns, and would then be faced with which ones to call "typical" or "indicative".
However, the person to whom I was replying used cheap and not-so-cheerful language to suggest that it was possible to talk about this en masse. Assuming that to be reasonable, I replied with an en masse response.
Certainly if you break it down at the county level, I expect you'd find multiple different patterns, and would then be faced with which ones to call "typical" or "indicative".
Housing costs are not included in measures of inflation.
While they have gone up (almost certainly faster than inflation), they are not part of the inflation numbers that we hear in the news.
While they have gone up (almost certainly faster than inflation), they are not part of the inflation numbers that we hear in the news.
> Housing costs are not included in measures of inflation
Yes, they are [1][2].
[1] https://www.bea.gov/sites/default/files/methodologies/RIPfac...
[2] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-does-the-consumer-pri...
Yes, they are [1][2].
[1] https://www.bea.gov/sites/default/files/methodologies/RIPfac...
[2] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-does-the-consumer-pri...
My apologies, home ownership costs are not included in inflation measures. But I was wrong and you're correct: rents are.
Which actually makes my point even more clearly: yes, there are a lot of anecdotes about not being able to make the rent, but these are not supported by the statistics for inflation and median income. Doesn't mean that they are wrong, but makes it more likely that there are other reasons for the proliferation of these stories.
Which actually makes my point even more clearly: yes, there are a lot of anecdotes about not being able to make the rent, but these are not supported by the statistics for inflation and median income. Doesn't mean that they are wrong, but makes it more likely that there are other reasons for the proliferation of these stories.
> home ownership costs are not included in inflation measures
They are, as one of the inputs to imputed rent for owner-occupied housing.
> lot of anecdotes about not being able to make the rent
A lot is explained by regional variation. For example, real mean wages in San Francisco are back where they were in 2017 [1].
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MWACL06075
They are, as one of the inputs to imputed rent for owner-occupied housing.
> lot of anecdotes about not being able to make the rent
A lot is explained by regional variation. For example, real mean wages in San Francisco are back where they were in 2017 [1].
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MWACL06075
>A lot is explained by regional variation.
but no one is digging in to talk about the regional variation. SF going back to being "still one of the highest CoL post genrification" instead of "unbearable for all but the elite" isn't exactly comforting.
but no one is digging in to talk about the regional variation. SF going back to being "still one of the highest CoL post genrification" instead of "unbearable for all but the elite" isn't exactly comforting.
I don't love the game of "someone posted a random article with some numbers that they found from a 5 minute Google search, but now I have to do the much harder & longer work of verifying if it's legitimate or misleading"
Since HN doesn't allow pasting images into comments (good!), I did not paste the numerous charts from the St. Louis Fed and others that I have bookmarked to show this data in various different ways. Also, the FRED numbers only go to 2022 in their data plotter, which is a problem if you want newer data (it exists).
What would prefer me to do? Post a dozen links that all the same thing, arguably less obviously?
I have not seen a single one yet that shows a decline in real wages.
What would prefer me to do? Post a dozen links that all the same thing, arguably less obviously?
I have not seen a single one yet that shows a decline in real wages.
No, wages have been falling since 2021 when accounting for inflation.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/inflation-has-outpaced-wage-gro...
Maybe this isn't that Axios journalist's field, but that huge spike of 9.1% annual inflation in 2022 won't be made up for by a 1% difference in 2024. Showing only the current rate and not the cumulative effects seems disingenuous.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/inflation-has-outpaced-wage-gro...
Maybe this isn't that Axios journalist's field, but that huge spike of 9.1% annual inflation in 2022 won't be made up for by a 1% difference in 2024. Showing only the current rate and not the cumulative effects seems disingenuous.
> Maybe that Axios journalist isn't the smartest
You're both right. Real wages are down from the pandemic, but that's because they spiked massively due to the stimulus spending [1]. Real wages today are where they were in Q1 2020, which was the highest they had been since at least 1982.
Both the Axios and Journal charts are confusing because they're taking the first derivative of a complex curve.
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q
You're both right. Real wages are down from the pandemic, but that's because they spiked massively due to the stimulus spending [1]. Real wages today are where they were in Q1 2020, which was the highest they had been since at least 1982.
Both the Axios and Journal charts are confusing because they're taking the first derivative of a complex curve.
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q
Thanks for posting that graph. When I went to FRED to get it, i only got a data series to 2022. I consider this be the most definitive measure that I've seen yet.
Tangent:
How do you navigate Fred effectively? I can usually find something close to what I want, but not exact through Google searches of the site.
How do you navigate Fred effectively? I can usually find something close to what I want, but not exact through Google searches of the site.
> How do you navigate Fred effectively?
Kagi :P. I know the names of most of these data series, so it’s searching e.g. real weekly earnings fed fred.
Kagi :P. I know the names of most of these data series, so it’s searching e.g. real weekly earnings fed fred.
thanks!
Remote work for developers is a viable option. We are rapidly moving the majority of our software development to India, and only keeping product leads in Europe and the US.
Every 10 years, like clockwork, a bunch of dimwit managers think they're the first to realize they can outsource software development to India and save so much money. You're apparently next in line to discover that this gets you nothing but a pile of unmaintainable code that will destroy your business's viability.
>We are rapidly moving the majority of our software development to India
Good luck with that, almost every company that does that either fails or brings development back to their main location.
Good luck with that, almost every company that does that either fails or brings development back to their main location.
It’s working out spectacularly.
Why the move?
Restrictive US immigration policy. Our chief architect was forced to return to India. We decided to keep him on at his US salary under a wholly owned Indian subsidiary and have been adding hand-picked Indian nationals to the team. It’s working out well.
Do they have diversity hire quotas in india?
I guessed so
I guessed so
By staying home, you're making yourself (even more) replaceable with bots.
Note that a 'remote worker' is increasingly used as an analogy for bot performance.
(edit: I should clarify that I don't mean it in absolutes, if you got a task at hand, wfh by all means, but I won't do zoom meetings, if you wanna talk, come to the place)
Note that a 'remote worker' is increasingly used as an analogy for bot performance.
(edit: I should clarify that I don't mean it in absolutes, if you got a task at hand, wfh by all means, but I won't do zoom meetings, if you wanna talk, come to the place)
>By staying home, you're making yourself (even more) replaceable with bots.
How so?
How so?
Because you're just generating tokens as opposed to actually engaging in irl discourse inside the company, whatever that means for your field of expertise.
I'm not sure what you mean by "generating token", I'm guessing satisfying their requirements?
That being said, I don't see how meetings are any less engaging. There's still the exchange of ideas and opinions, that's what really matters.
That being said, I don't see how meetings are any less engaging. There's still the exchange of ideas and opinions, that's what really matters.
Isn’t the goal to replace yourself with a bot? As long as the money keeps coming in.
The reality is anyone’s replaceable with bots
This move toward not giving permanent desk assignments to people who are required to be in the office also makes it worse. Open plan offices are a bit of a productivity hit on a good day, but they're extra awful when every day it's a new set of voices to learn to tune out, and another half hour spent packing and unpacking all your shit, adjusting computer monitors to minimize glare from the overhead fluorescent lights, etc. And, if you want to actually take advantage of the co-location, 15-30 minutes spent figuring out where all your collaborators are sitting today, and scrambling for meeting rooms and huddle spaces, which are now in high demand since collaborators can no longer sit together in any sort of stable way and must instead fight for huddle space if they want to do any in-person collaboration. Alternatively you spend the entire day with headphones on (uncomfortable!) because you decide not to do that, and instead spend the whole day on team meetings because it's easier. And even headphones when you're not actively in meetings because everyone around you makes the same decision.
A couple years ago, I was eager for a return to office. That died pretty quickly after return to office happened, because the reality is that we're not returning to anything. Office life post-COVID is an entirely new thing that's worse than what office life was like pre-COVID in almost every way. And so the mandatory in-office days are, in practice, just the days that fully remote team members need to cut the hybrid members some slack for not being able to get anything done.