You seem to be confusing Chile and Argentina. Milei is president of Argentina, not Chile. The new president of Chile is José Kast. I suspect the substance of your comment is unaffected by this, however.
Agreed. I was disappointed at the overall lack of engineering content in this piece. Lots of general talk about how there were issues and that they were overcome. But what? And how? I feel like most of the content could apply to almost any project.
The more I read this thread the more it boggles my mind. How is it not completely obvious that part of your job, as an employee, is to not make life more difficult for your manager? (The reverse, of course, is true as well.) Managers cost money and tend to be there for a reason. If an employee makes their manager's job harder, that is a bad thing for the company.
Of course, that's not to say that making their manager's job easier is their only responsibility, or that they should ways do what makes their manager's life easier at any margin. Bot those are things I never said in the first place.
I think this is right. Of course, the trade-off has always been there for all to see between "work" and "life," but greater ability to WFH has rightly cause people to reassess the sacrifices they are willing to make for their careers. I hope I've been clear that, while I think there are real reasons RTO is valuable, they are not necessarily decisive at every margin.
Of course, another side of this is that some people like their workplaces and like to social aspect of going into the office. Not everyone has to, of course, but it also takes a certain critical mass of people in the office in order for anyone to get those benefits. So, on a certain level, this is also just about competing preferences.
Though the truth is probably just that we're not seeing eye-to-eye because we're communicating through an imperfect medium that doesn't encourage a nuanced discussion.
The relationship is reciprocal. I lay the tracks so my supervisees can do their job (and, indeed, have a job to do!). They help me produce far more work for clients than I ever could myself.
That's not at all what I mean. What I mean is that I am responsible for the output of my team. If someone I am supervising does a bad job, is hard to communicate with, etc. it means that one way or another I have to do more work, which reduces the total output of my team. It can also lead to inferior service, angry clients, adverse outcomes, etc.
> we're not here to please you or make your job easier
I don't mean to be a jerk but ... if you are one of the people I manage, you literally are employed (at least in part) to make my job easier. That's not the only thing that matters -- which is why we (like many employers) do still allow some remote work. But making management more difficult is absolutely an impact that a rational workplace would take into account.
I'm not persuaded that's the only thing going on here, but I'm sure that is part of it. Nonetheless, I think this is why many employers pushed for RTO.
It's worse in the sense that a more senior person has to spend more time fixing it. I guess that's an opportunity in the sense that it allows a firm to bill more hours, but there is generally a reason we wanted that more junior person to do the work originally. (Client cost sensitivity, teal workloads, training, etc.)
I can't speak to your sector, but from the perspective in my management role (in law) the explanation is quite simple: managing remote workers is more difficult and less pleasant than managing workers in the office. I actually hate it. And even granting that remote and in-office workers are "productive" in the sense that they bill hours (though not even this seems true in my anecdotal experience), we find that people with less in-office time tend to have qualitatively worse performance. At least in my field, being in the office, spending time with your co-workers, and getting to know them has value.
Of course, other things have value too. Often, our folks who prefer to work from home do so because they have small children who they want to spend time with, more fully share parental responsibilities with their partner, etc. I'm glad that they have the opportunity to do that, but it does generally seem to come at some professional cost.
I guess I'm getting the dumb one too. I just got this response:
> Walk — it's only 50 meters, which is less than a minute on foot. Driving that distance to a car wash would also be a bit counterproductive, since you'd just be getting the car dirty again on the way there (even if only slightly). Lace up and stroll over!
True. But I did not ask about "pigeon" and "dove." I asked it about "pigeon" and "mourning dove" which are unambiguously different species. Different genuses, even. Zenaida macroura v. Columba livia.
Then why do you think virtually all of the most successful tech startups are U.S. companies? (Excluding Asia, for the purposes of this discussion.) Is it just Silicon Valley network effects?
> Try flying Lufthansa (or one of their half dozen subsidiaries created almost entirely to give worse service) anywhere inside of europe. Everything is a money grab and the service and boarding are terrible.
FWIW, I just took such a flight and didn't notice anything that compares unfavorably to a domestic U.S. airline. (To be clear, it certainly wasn't better either.) Is there anything specific you can point to?