9 ms·

==When my office door is closed, everyone knows I'm "at work". If you don't have a separate physical space where you only work, I can see how this might be a ch

==When my office door is closed, everyone knows I'm "at work". If you don't have a separate physical space where you only work, I can see how this might be a challenge.== Now add a partner who also works from home. Will the extra space (and hardware) needed to comfortably fit all these new home workers be another cost shifted from companies to employees? If my company wants me to work from home much longer; they need to provide a better desk chair, a new screen, and better keyboard/mouse attachments.

toomuchtodo 6y ago
My company provides a very generous allowance (~$1000) for work from home equipment (desk, etc). Yours should too, and if they don't, vote with your feet.
- take_a_breath 6y ago
  Good call, I should just go get a new job in the middle of the worst destruction of jobs in history. After I do that, my one-time $1,000 stipend won't make my house bigger. The point is that if more people are going to work from their houses, then houses will need to be bigger in the medium- to long-term.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    Should you live near your job if it's expensive? Your choice. Should your employer pay you more if they can pay someone less who lives somewhere cheaper? Their choice. If you want to live in a small place in the city, there is a cost. If it's not pleasant to work from there because there isn't enough space, that is part of the cost. You are competing with folks who can now work from home, and have the space to do so effectively. Is that good or bad? No, it just is. Life is about choices. I'm enumerating my choices because I want to help others make choices that help them have a higher quality of life when the choice presents itself. Do what is best for you. I apologize if any of my responses come across as anything less than helpful; my intent is to be helpful.
    - take_a_breath 6y ago
      What decisions were made years ago? I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. A lot has changed in a matter of 3 months. Decisions are constantly being re-evaluated with new information. I was simply opining on how something like "an increase in working from home" might actually have larger societal impacts. This article suggests people might move away from expensive places like Silicon Valley. I am suggesting there is another angle, the amount of space people have available at home to actually perform work. It shifts the burden of finding a work station off employers and onto employees. Does a one-time stipend of $1,000 cover that? Probably not for many people.
      - ghaff 6y ago
        >Does a one-time stipend of $1,000 cover that? Probably not for many people. On the other hand, commuting is usually not cheap--even if it's just a transit pass. Your points about space are reasonable though most people I know with houses seem to be doing OK. (But then we're a large distributed company so many are on video calls from home on a regular basis anyway.) It's certainly fair though that, if you have a tiny city apartment that's just a place to sleep, that can't be very pleasant right now and you'd probably want to rethink if going into an office becomes no longer a typical daily activity. (Some companies will pay for co-working space so that may be one option.)
        take_a_breath 6y ago
        ==On the other hand, commuting is usually not cheap== Not cheap, but tax advantaged and sometimes even reimbursed. The tax advantages for working-from-home are much harder to unlock, especially in the short-term or if you work from your bedroom. Anyways, I thought it was an interesting economic thought-exercise to discuss the second-level impacts of a work-from-home society. I've seen a lot of talk on people fleeing cities, but I think there is a lot more nuance to the discussion.
        gowld 6y ago
        "tax-advantaged" just means "discounted". It's still a large expense. Why would an employer reimburse commute costs but not pay a workstation stipend to non-commuters (possibly marked down 50% due to taxes)?
bradlys 6y ago
So... $1000 for a fancy electric standing desk. $1000 for a fancy chair. $1000 for better monitors + arms. $200 for a keyboard. $100 for a mouse. We're looking at less than $3500 for a mid-level setup. The cost of a bit of equipment is a joke compared to the cost of another bedroom. Adding another room to a house is tens of thousands of dollars. Buying a home with another room is also the same cost or more depending on where you live (bay area - another bedroom can easily be $200k+!). Renting - same problem. I wouldn't get hung up on equipment costs when the cost of space is far greater. (Even if you replace all furniture every 3 years)
- take_a_breath 6y ago
  ==I wouldn't get hung up on equipment costs when the cost of space is far greater.== I think you misread my comment because this was my exact point. Fundamentally shifting 8-10 hours of our day back to our homes will directly impact how we set up our homes. What might those impacts be? More space is the first one that comes to mind because I feel it everyday with two people working-from-home.
  - nitrogen 6y ago
    On the bright side though, you can move to a location that has more space at a lower cost. As more people do so, you should also expect to see more restaurants, coffee shops, etc. open up outside of the highest density areas.
    - bradlys 6y ago
      And then prices increase... and it's almost like you've just moved the problem from one area to another. I'm convinced America is just going to continue to sprawl. I don't think there will ever be a case where we'll actually increase the density of cities overall beyond that of typical SFH density. (And thus more cars, less public transit, etc.)
      - danans 6y ago
        > And then prices increase... and it's almost like you've just moved the problem from one area to another. Yes, making a location more desirable by increasing its amenities will raise prices. The way to counter that is to make those sorts of amenities that people desire (cafes, transit, walkability) more broadly available, not to stifle them.

toomuchtodo 6y ago

My company provides a very generous allowance (~$1000) for work from home equipment (desk, etc). Yours should too, and if they don't, vote with your feet.

take_a_breath 6y ago
Good call, I should just go get a new job in the middle of the worst destruction of jobs in history. After I do that, my one-time $1,000 stipend won't make my house bigger. The point is that if more people are going to work from their houses, then houses will need to be bigger in the medium- to long-term.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  Should you live near your job if it's expensive? Your choice. Should your employer pay you more if they can pay someone less who lives somewhere cheaper? Their choice. If you want to live in a small place in the city, there is a cost. If it's not pleasant to work from there because there isn't enough space, that is part of the cost. You are competing with folks who can now work from home, and have the space to do so effectively. Is that good or bad? No, it just is. Life is about choices. I'm enumerating my choices because I want to help others make choices that help them have a higher quality of life when the choice presents itself. Do what is best for you. I apologize if any of my responses come across as anything less than helpful; my intent is to be helpful.
  - take_a_breath 6y ago
    What decisions were made years ago? I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. A lot has changed in a matter of 3 months. Decisions are constantly being re-evaluated with new information. I was simply opining on how something like "an increase in working from home" might actually have larger societal impacts. This article suggests people might move away from expensive places like Silicon Valley. I am suggesting there is another angle, the amount of space people have available at home to actually perform work. It shifts the burden of finding a work station off employers and onto employees. Does a one-time stipend of $1,000 cover that? Probably not for many people.
    - ghaff 6y ago
      >Does a one-time stipend of $1,000 cover that? Probably not for many people. On the other hand, commuting is usually not cheap--even if it's just a transit pass. Your points about space are reasonable though most people I know with houses seem to be doing OK. (But then we're a large distributed company so many are on video calls from home on a regular basis anyway.) It's certainly fair though that, if you have a tiny city apartment that's just a place to sleep, that can't be very pleasant right now and you'd probably want to rethink if going into an office becomes no longer a typical daily activity. (Some companies will pay for co-working space so that may be one option.)
      - take_a_breath 6y ago
        ==On the other hand, commuting is usually not cheap== Not cheap, but tax advantaged and sometimes even reimbursed. The tax advantages for working-from-home are much harder to unlock, especially in the short-term or if you work from your bedroom. Anyways, I thought it was an interesting economic thought-exercise to discuss the second-level impacts of a work-from-home society. I've seen a lot of talk on people fleeing cities, but I think there is a lot more nuance to the discussion.
        gowld 6y ago
        "tax-advantaged" just means "discounted". It's still a large expense. Why would an employer reimburse commute costs but not pay a workstation stipend to non-commuters (possibly marked down 50% due to taxes)?

bradlys 6y ago

So... $1000 for a fancy electric standing desk. $1000 for a fancy chair. $1000 for better monitors + arms. $200 for a keyboard. $100 for a mouse. We're looking at less than $3500 for a mid-level setup. The cost of a bit of equipment is a joke compared to the cost of another bedroom. Adding another room to a house is tens of thousands of dollars. Buying a home with another room is also the same cost or more depending on where you live (bay area - another bedroom can easily be $200k+!). Renting - same problem. I wouldn't get hung up on equipment costs when the cost of space is far greater. (Even if you replace all furniture every 3 years)

take_a_breath 6y ago
==I wouldn't get hung up on equipment costs when the cost of space is far greater.== I think you misread my comment because this was my exact point. Fundamentally shifting 8-10 hours of our day back to our homes will directly impact how we set up our homes. What might those impacts be? More space is the first one that comes to mind because I feel it everyday with two people working-from-home.
- nitrogen 6y ago
  On the bright side though, you can move to a location that has more space at a lower cost. As more people do so, you should also expect to see more restaurants, coffee shops, etc. open up outside of the highest density areas.
  - bradlys 6y ago
    And then prices increase... and it's almost like you've just moved the problem from one area to another. I'm convinced America is just going to continue to sprawl. I don't think there will ever be a case where we'll actually increase the density of cities overall beyond that of typical SFH density. (And thus more cars, less public transit, etc.)
    - danans 6y ago
      > And then prices increase... and it's almost like you've just moved the problem from one area to another. Yes, making a location more desirable by increasing its amenities will raise prices. The way to counter that is to make those sorts of amenities that people desire (cafes, transit, walkability) more broadly available, not to stifle them.