5 ms·

" Brain power and productivity arrive instantly where they’re needed with zero transmission cost." Except, it doesn't, because achieving productivity usually r

" Brain power and productivity arrive instantly where they’re needed with zero transmission cost." Except, it doesn't, because achieving productivity usually requires remote workers to be able to collaborate effectively, and whether they can or not varies wildly. The author doesn't seem to get this - if remote workers were so amazing, and had been so amazing in practice, companies would use them more. Companies do not want the expense of real estate, amenities, etc Maybe the author should stop to wonder about "hmmm, i'm clearly not the only one to think of this idea, maybe this hasn't happened because there aren't a lot of huge success stories".

kctess5 11y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10034883 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10034883
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
OrwellianChild 11y ago
> If remote workers were so amazing, and had been so amazing in practice, companies would use them more. This kind of thinking forgets the fact that the standard office arrangement has been the same since long before modern technologies became the standard way of communicating and planning. We're dealing with a huge legacy of "how it's been done" that is slow to change, despite the fact that I talk to my colleagues by chat and e-mail the vast majority of the time and reliable voice, video, and collab techs are now widely available. Add to this the fact that the remote office has been shown to work for companies that start out that way and work towards that ethos (e.g. Basecamp, others).
erispoe 11y ago
If telecommuting was giving a significant advantage to companies, at least some companies would have implemented it successfully. Apart from specific cases, that's not happening. The author's hypothesis is that telecommuting is at least as efficient, consumes less resources and makes people happy. A bold claim, but many have written that before. In light of the evidence, nobody's really doing it, what's the most likely, that the author is right and every company with brick and mortar offices is wrong, or the reverse? Telecommuting is to work what VR sex is to sex. Will some people be content with VR sex only? I'm sure some people will. A majority of them? Not so sure.
mmaunder 11y ago
You're looking at this from a founder/company perspective. When I wrote that, and most of this post I was thinking of three things: The employee, the greater good (all of us, environment, etc - 'community' for lack of a better word) and the company. So you could change that first sentence to read: "Brain power and productivity arrive instantly where they’re needed with zero transmission cost [to the employee]" Employee, company and community aren't mutually exclusive. Reducing commuting cost for employee makes for someone who's happier, healthier and has more time available which benefits company and community. I'd say only considering cost-to-company is less effective and a narrow way to measure how well your work environment and policies are doing. "if remote workers were so amazing, and had been so amazing in practice, companies would use them more..." An argument that can be used against any innovation with a legacy alternative.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
sheepmullet 11y ago
"The author doesn't seem to get this - if remote workers were so amazing, and had been so amazing in practice, companies would use them more." A nice idea in theory but it doesn't hold up in practice. In fact the entire premise of startups is that large companies are run incredibly inefficiently and get stuck in local optima. Managers typically stick to known practices and rarely experiment unless they are forced to or there are clear personal benefits. It is very difficult to move against entrenched corporate culture and pretty much nobody does it "for the company".

kctess5 11y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10034883 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10034883

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

OrwellianChild 11y ago

> If remote workers were so amazing, and had been so amazing in practice, companies would use them more. This kind of thinking forgets the fact that the standard office arrangement has been the same since long before modern technologies became the standard way of communicating and planning. We're dealing with a huge legacy of "how it's been done" that is slow to change, despite the fact that I talk to my colleagues by chat and e-mail the vast majority of the time and reliable voice, video, and collab techs are now widely available. Add to this the fact that the remote office has been shown to work for companies that start out that way and work towards that ethos (e.g. Basecamp, others).

erispoe 11y ago

If telecommuting was giving a significant advantage to companies, at least some companies would have implemented it successfully. Apart from specific cases, that's not happening. The author's hypothesis is that telecommuting is at least as efficient, consumes less resources and makes people happy. A bold claim, but many have written that before. In light of the evidence, nobody's really doing it, what's the most likely, that the author is right and every company with brick and mortar offices is wrong, or the reverse? Telecommuting is to work what VR sex is to sex. Will some people be content with VR sex only? I'm sure some people will. A majority of them? Not so sure.

mmaunder 11y ago

You're looking at this from a founder/company perspective. When I wrote that, and most of this post I was thinking of three things: The employee, the greater good (all of us, environment, etc - 'community' for lack of a better word) and the company. So you could change that first sentence to read: "Brain power and productivity arrive instantly where they’re needed with zero transmission cost [to the employee]" Employee, company and community aren't mutually exclusive. Reducing commuting cost for employee makes for someone who's happier, healthier and has more time available which benefits company and community. I'd say only considering cost-to-company is less effective and a narrow way to measure how well your work environment and policies are doing. "if remote workers were so amazing, and had been so amazing in practice, companies would use them more..." An argument that can be used against any innovation with a legacy alternative.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

sheepmullet 11y ago

"The author doesn't seem to get this - if remote workers were so amazing, and had been so amazing in practice, companies would use them more." A nice idea in theory but it doesn't hold up in practice. In fact the entire premise of startups is that large companies are run incredibly inefficiently and get stuck in local optima. Managers typically stick to known practices and rarely experiment unless they are forced to or there are clear personal benefits. It is very difficult to move against entrenched corporate culture and pretty much nobody does it "for the company".