3 ms·

> I addressed the privilege in my post. It's in bad faith to bring it up as if I didn't, also gaslighting. You addressed it in respect to the ability to quit.

> I addressed the privilege in my post. It's in bad faith to bring it up as if I didn't, also gaslighting. You addressed it in respect to the ability to quit. I'm talking in terms of the standard you are setting and projecting onto all companies. I don't see how that's in bad faith or gaslighting. I don't think you know what that term means based on your use. > For jobs that can be done remote This might be the key issue - it sounds like you are massively undervaluing aspects of non-remote work that are beneficial to both workers and companies. > Every company that forces employees into an office has gross office politics. We're gonna have to agree to disagree. I'm all for more remote companies existing, but offices are not inherently corrupt.

ryanSrich 6y ago
> I don't think you know what that term means based on your use. You made me second guess if I did in fact address the issue. I did. > it sounds like you are massively undervaluing aspects of non-remote work that are beneficial to both workers and companies. You're right. I am undervaluing it. Being in person has no inherent benefits over being remote. Maybe 20 years ago, but the internet has fixed those issues. Low-fidelity remote work is a cultural issue. Not a technology issue. Companies refuse to do remote work correctly so they can continue archaic co-located work.
- adjkant 6y ago
  > Being in person has no inherent benefits over being remote. Socializing. Clearer communication with better nonverbal interpretations. The ability to more easily drop by someone's desk, to whiteboard in a room, etc. For some, productivity. Separation of home and work life. Even an excuse to get out and about. Yes, there are ways to get some remote analogs for some of these, but they don't magically work the same for everyone. > Low-fidelity remote work is a cultural issue. That doesn't make it any less of an issue to implement. If anything, that's harder than a technology issue. Why would you trust these bad companies to implement any sort of sane work culture in a remote setting than they do in an office? If anything, remote only offers more abuse vectors. > Companies refuse to do remote work correctly so they can continue archaic co-located work. I think you're far too pessimistic here. Laziness and resistance to change is far more likely than malice in regards to not going remote.

ryanSrich 6y ago

> I don't think you know what that term means based on your use. You made me second guess if I did in fact address the issue. I did. > it sounds like you are massively undervaluing aspects of non-remote work that are beneficial to both workers and companies. You're right. I am undervaluing it. Being in person has no inherent benefits over being remote. Maybe 20 years ago, but the internet has fixed those issues. Low-fidelity remote work is a cultural issue. Not a technology issue. Companies refuse to do remote work correctly so they can continue archaic co-located work.

adjkant 6y ago
> Being in person has no inherent benefits over being remote. Socializing. Clearer communication with better nonverbal interpretations. The ability to more easily drop by someone's desk, to whiteboard in a room, etc. For some, productivity. Separation of home and work life. Even an excuse to get out and about. Yes, there are ways to get some remote analogs for some of these, but they don't magically work the same for everyone. > Low-fidelity remote work is a cultural issue. That doesn't make it any less of an issue to implement. If anything, that's harder than a technology issue. Why would you trust these bad companies to implement any sort of sane work culture in a remote setting than they do in an office? If anything, remote only offers more abuse vectors. > Companies refuse to do remote work correctly so they can continue archaic co-located work. I think you're far too pessimistic here. Laziness and resistance to change is far more likely than malice in regards to not going remote.