5 ms·

This permanent work from home theory sits really wrong with me. In particular this part; > Permanently upgrade all employee’s work from home environments so th

by mdoms 6y ago

This permanent work from home theory sits really wrong with me. In particular this part; > Permanently upgrade all employee’s work from home environments so they are the same quality as their in-office stations. This may come in the form of stipends, lump sum payments, or redistribution of office property, depending on job function. It's extremely unlikely that a company is going to offer me a lump sum payment that anywhere near makes up for the increased floor space and altered layout of my home to give me a proper office-like environment to work in. Few companies will shell out $50,000 for me to extend my home to build an office, and I see no reason why I should work for an organisation that demands I do so myself. For many people in HCOL areas it's totally unreasonable to expect people to shell out double their rent or more to get an extra bedroom/office space. Look, I live in New Zealand. I can tell you that this whole "everything has changed forever" attitude that I am hearing from Americans will pass, very quickly, when this pandemic ends. We will most likely see employers becoming a lot more flexible with WFH arrangements, which is a really nice silver lining. But the idea that the office is done for? Forget about it.

feralimal 6y ago
Why and when do you think it will end? Did you see how quickly the networks were upgraded? Within weeks around my way... So, infrastructure was upgraded quickly. You are probably aware of what's going on in Australia - where lockdowns are returning, with certain tower blocks in Melbourne locked in, and the army making house to house calls.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  It will end because many people derive a good portion of their day-to-day socialization from work. This is especially true of people new to cities, younger folks without immediate family in the area, and so on. Here's why I'll head back to the office the first chance I get: 1. I don't want to live my entire life within a 750 square foot allotment. 2. I find my ability to balance work and life enhanced by going somewhere to work. The physical separation between the two creates a mental / emotional separation. 3. Socializing with a bunch of people. 4. Enhanced impact: much of the truly innovative and impactful stuff I've done in my career originated from ad-hoc conversations with people around me. It's not the same over Slack. 5. Someone on my team announced on Friday they were leaving the team and expressed how much they enjoyed working with us over the last 6 months. My immediate reaction was... wait, we worked together? for 6 months? I don't really know who you are. The only people I actually feel connected to at work are the ones I worked with before this madness kicked off. Humans are fundamentally social animals. That's why it will end. As for when? Once herd immunity is established, either the American way by throwing old folks and the immunocompromised under the bus until nobody's left, or a vaccine, which will likely be available in global quantities by EOY 2021 -- according to manufacturers in late-stage trials. That's when it will end. IMO, of course.
  - emptysongglass 6y ago
    Counterpoint: I'm loving the increased time I have with my wife at home and flexible scheduling . I invested years of my life making friends outside of an office; I'm going out with them more, inviting them to galleries, playing board games with them a bunch. The mistake was turning our workplace into our everything. Hail the new era, where we find our friends some other way.
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      I don't disagree with you, but there's a hidden third dynamic here. If we agree some people want to work in offices and some people don't, we'll need to accommodate both. We'll have offices for some and remote for others. However, now there's two groups -- and I'll dig up some studies, but I believe remote workers are passed over for promotions and raises since they're out-of-sight, out-of-mind for the in-office crowd. This is going to pressure a return to the status quo IMO.
      - csa 6y ago
        I think that there are four groups who will really embrace going back to the office, and I think it will gradually change the underlying narrative about what it means for someone to prefer to be in the office: 1. People who are fantastic team players in an organization that does a good job of facilitating group work. I hate the term “team player”, and I think most teams are a farce, but watching an effective team work is like magic to me. This is the best outcome, imho, but I think that this will be a tiny percentage of the folks who embrace going back in (mainly due to workplace structure and incentives, but that’s a slightly different issue). 2. Extroverts. These folks just need to be around other people if you want them to be productive. This group is a push — neither good nor bad imho. 3. The office politicians. My guess is that this will be the vast majority of people who rush back to work. They look busy, but they don’t do very much, yet they know how to work the system. These folks are a tax on mid- and large-sized companies, and I think that folks who prefer being in the office will be perceived as being this type of person, rightly or wrongly. 4. Folks who have tight living quarters or some sort of taxing home restraints. This could be a small living space that is common in a large city, a family who is not particularly accommodating (e.g., kids or a demanding spouse), etc. I have a friend for whom going to the office and working feels like a break for him and his wife due to having three young kids at home — I totally understand. Part of the potential stigmatization of being a politico who goes in all the time or someone who prefers WFH can be mitigated by having office time be limited to one or two days a week. This puts everyone on equal footing, while reducing a lot of the burden of working in an office. One issue with this is that it still means that people need to live somewhat in the same area as their workplace, but I think that this type of arrangement increases the radius of reasonable living places as related to distance from workplace by quite a bit. Note that I am shooting from the hip here. I personally think that a large percentage of the innovative and disruptive companies moving forward will be some form of remote-first work. I think this mainly due to the incredible flexibility in hiring that remote-first provides. That said, it will only happen with folks who are comfortable with the format, and I think that is mostly (although definitely not exclusively) people who are (spitballing here) in their 20s or younger.
foobiekr 6y ago
I strongly agree with your last paragraph. It is a very bad habit, from within the event, for people to conclude that everything has changed, that this thing, which is ephemeral, will have the particular long term impact that the authors are wishing for. There may be long term effects, but ... In the valley, the number of people I personally know who are moving - not talking about it, actually moving - out of the city, in particular, but also out of the peninsula, is actually quite surprising. But I saw this happen in 2000-2002, as well, and half of them moved back by 2004.
- ne9xt 6y ago
  The housing market in the Santa Cruz mountains is exploding as people from the city are buying homes in the mountains, enabled by WFH policies.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    Yeah, though, once offices reopen and the remote employees are being passed over for promotions and raises, I suspect they'll be back right quick.
    - recuter 6y ago
      If the difference in cost and quality of living this enables is sufficient maybe fewer people will chase promotions.
    - ghaff 6y ago
      Or maybe people will decide that as long as they can afford to live in the Santa Cruz mountains, all the office crap doesn't really matter very much. More generally I expect a lot of people are rethinking their priorities.
  - randycupertino 6y ago
    Heck, even single family homes on the Peninsula and in the East Bay are flying off the market as people leave the metro areas and look for places with yards and pools.

by mdoms 6y ago

feralimal 6y ago

Why and when do you think it will end? Did you see how quickly the networks were upgraded? Within weeks around my way... So, infrastructure was upgraded quickly. You are probably aware of what's going on in Australia - where lockdowns are returning, with certain tower blocks in Melbourne locked in, and the army making house to house calls.

arcticbull 6y ago
It will end because many people derive a good portion of their day-to-day socialization from work. This is especially true of people new to cities, younger folks without immediate family in the area, and so on. Here's why I'll head back to the office the first chance I get: 1. I don't want to live my entire life within a 750 square foot allotment. 2. I find my ability to balance work and life enhanced by going somewhere to work. The physical separation between the two creates a mental / emotional separation. 3. Socializing with a bunch of people. 4. Enhanced impact: much of the truly innovative and impactful stuff I've done in my career originated from ad-hoc conversations with people around me. It's not the same over Slack. 5. Someone on my team announced on Friday they were leaving the team and expressed how much they enjoyed working with us over the last 6 months. My immediate reaction was... wait, we worked together? for 6 months? I don't really know who you are. The only people I actually feel connected to at work are the ones I worked with before this madness kicked off. Humans are fundamentally social animals. That's why it will end. As for when? Once herd immunity is established, either the American way by throwing old folks and the immunocompromised under the bus until nobody's left, or a vaccine, which will likely be available in global quantities by EOY 2021 -- according to manufacturers in late-stage trials. That's when it will end. IMO, of course.
- emptysongglass 6y ago
  Counterpoint: I'm loving the increased time I have with my wife at home and flexible scheduling . I invested years of my life making friends outside of an office; I'm going out with them more, inviting them to galleries, playing board games with them a bunch. The mistake was turning our workplace into our everything. Hail the new era, where we find our friends some other way.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    I don't disagree with you, but there's a hidden third dynamic here. If we agree some people want to work in offices and some people don't, we'll need to accommodate both. We'll have offices for some and remote for others. However, now there's two groups -- and I'll dig up some studies, but I believe remote workers are passed over for promotions and raises since they're out-of-sight, out-of-mind for the in-office crowd. This is going to pressure a return to the status quo IMO.
    - csa 6y ago
      I think that there are four groups who will really embrace going back to the office, and I think it will gradually change the underlying narrative about what it means for someone to prefer to be in the office: 1. People who are fantastic team players in an organization that does a good job of facilitating group work. I hate the term “team player”, and I think most teams are a farce, but watching an effective team work is like magic to me. This is the best outcome, imho, but I think that this will be a tiny percentage of the folks who embrace going back in (mainly due to workplace structure and incentives, but that’s a slightly different issue). 2. Extroverts. These folks just need to be around other people if you want them to be productive. This group is a push — neither good nor bad imho. 3. The office politicians. My guess is that this will be the vast majority of people who rush back to work. They look busy, but they don’t do very much, yet they know how to work the system. These folks are a tax on mid- and large-sized companies, and I think that folks who prefer being in the office will be perceived as being this type of person, rightly or wrongly. 4. Folks who have tight living quarters or some sort of taxing home restraints. This could be a small living space that is common in a large city, a family who is not particularly accommodating (e.g., kids or a demanding spouse), etc. I have a friend for whom going to the office and working feels like a break for him and his wife due to having three young kids at home — I totally understand. Part of the potential stigmatization of being a politico who goes in all the time or someone who prefers WFH can be mitigated by having office time be limited to one or two days a week. This puts everyone on equal footing, while reducing a lot of the burden of working in an office. One issue with this is that it still means that people need to live somewhat in the same area as their workplace, but I think that this type of arrangement increases the radius of reasonable living places as related to distance from workplace by quite a bit. Note that I am shooting from the hip here. I personally think that a large percentage of the innovative and disruptive companies moving forward will be some form of remote-first work. I think this mainly due to the incredible flexibility in hiring that remote-first provides. That said, it will only happen with folks who are comfortable with the format, and I think that is mostly (although definitely not exclusively) people who are (spitballing here) in their 20s or younger.

foobiekr 6y ago

I strongly agree with your last paragraph. It is a very bad habit, from within the event, for people to conclude that everything has changed, that this thing, which is ephemeral, will have the particular long term impact that the authors are wishing for. There may be long term effects, but ... In the valley, the number of people I personally know who are moving - not talking about it, actually moving - out of the city, in particular, but also out of the peninsula, is actually quite surprising. But I saw this happen in 2000-2002, as well, and half of them moved back by 2004.

ne9xt 6y ago
The housing market in the Santa Cruz mountains is exploding as people from the city are buying homes in the mountains, enabled by WFH policies.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  Yeah, though, once offices reopen and the remote employees are being passed over for promotions and raises, I suspect they'll be back right quick.
  - recuter 6y ago
    If the difference in cost and quality of living this enables is sufficient maybe fewer people will chase promotions.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    Or maybe people will decide that as long as they can afford to live in the Santa Cruz mountains, all the office crap doesn't really matter very much. More generally I expect a lot of people are rethinking their priorities.
- randycupertino 6y ago
  Heck, even single family homes on the Peninsula and in the East Bay are flying off the market as people leave the metro areas and look for places with yards and pools.