3 ms·

> People just have different preferences. I'm always surprised how HN treats WFH as _obviously_ superior and desirable in every way, to the point where OP is c

> People just have different preferences. I'm always surprised how HN treats WFH as _obviously_ superior and desirable in every way, to the point where OP is claiming these mega corps may collapse if they ask their employees to come into the office.

sjm 5y ago
I don't think anyone is arguing that WFH is "_obviously_ superior" for everyone, but there are clearly companies who are angling to push all of their employees back into the office (and back to the Bay Area specifically), and this isn't going to work for all of their employees, especially given the new competitiveness with other larger tech companies offering much more flexibility. From what I've seen, people aren't advocating for strict fully-remote work, but rather flexibility for teams within larger companies to decide what works for them and what remote hiring policies makes sense within those teams, rather than having strict guidelines passed down from executives indiscriminately.
Spooky23 5y ago
There's a bias towards tech company and startups here. Those are concentrated in places like the Bay Area, NYC Metro, Boston Metro, Atlanta Metro, DC Metro, etc. Those places are all commuting hellscapes, so there's almost no scenario where you wouldn't do WFH if you could. My dad did the Queens-Manhattan bus/subway/express subway/walk treadmill for most of his career -- not fun. I live in a small city with a 6 minute commute, my preference for WFH varies by weather (I mostly work outside) and whether my wife blocks my car in the driveway. Overall, I like both -- WFH has advantages for focused tasks, but I tend to work longer hours. Interacting with colleagues in person is much more productive in an office setting, and it's easier on my family. It's tough for my 8 year old to not be able to talk to dad when he gets home from school.
- RHSeeger 5y ago
  The ability to choose, on a daily basis and on the needs of your work and coworkers, whether to work from home or the office is, in my experience, far and away the best possible arrangement. Even when my commute was 2 hours each way, I still chose to go into the office once every week or two (and worked from home the rest of the time).
- burlesona 5y ago
  The commute thing depends on where exactly you live and work. I worked in SF for years, but lived in the city and biked to work. It was a nice commute, a great office, and I loved our neighborhood. These kinds of things are just really hard to generalize.
  - Spooky23 5y ago
    Yes and no. Lots of exceptions exist. But you can look at data like stuff from the Census Bureau and see detailed comparisons of commute times in different locales that give you a sense of the variation.
RHSeeger 5y ago
That's not how I read it. Rather, I read it as the _ability_ to work from home is _obviously_ superior. As some people do better remotely and some do better in the office, requiring that everyone come into the office is an inferior choice. Admittedly, even that isn't unambiguously true (and neither would be the reverse).
- yupper32 5y ago
  > requiring that everyone come into the office is an inferior choice For many, going into the office is their preference because everyone is required to go into the office. For a while I may be the only person going into the office on my team, which defeats the whole point. I want to be in the office because I work better when my team is around in person.
  - RHSeeger 5y ago
    > I want to be in the office because I work better when my team is around in person. That's pretty much why I said that allowing remote work isn't unambiguously the best choice. There's negatives to every arrangement, and your scenario is one of the negatives to allowing remote work. Personally, I don't think it's enough of negative to counteract the positives, but it's enough that it's worth having the discussion.

sjm 5y ago

I don't think anyone is arguing that WFH is "_obviously_ superior" for everyone, but there are clearly companies who are angling to push all of their employees back into the office (and back to the Bay Area specifically), and this isn't going to work for all of their employees, especially given the new competitiveness with other larger tech companies offering much more flexibility. From what I've seen, people aren't advocating for strict fully-remote work, but rather flexibility for teams within larger companies to decide what works for them and what remote hiring policies makes sense within those teams, rather than having strict guidelines passed down from executives indiscriminately.

Spooky23 5y ago

There's a bias towards tech company and startups here. Those are concentrated in places like the Bay Area, NYC Metro, Boston Metro, Atlanta Metro, DC Metro, etc. Those places are all commuting hellscapes, so there's almost no scenario where you wouldn't do WFH if you could. My dad did the Queens-Manhattan bus/subway/express subway/walk treadmill for most of his career -- not fun. I live in a small city with a 6 minute commute, my preference for WFH varies by weather (I mostly work outside) and whether my wife blocks my car in the driveway. Overall, I like both -- WFH has advantages for focused tasks, but I tend to work longer hours. Interacting with colleagues in person is much more productive in an office setting, and it's easier on my family. It's tough for my 8 year old to not be able to talk to dad when he gets home from school.

RHSeeger 5y ago
The ability to choose, on a daily basis and on the needs of your work and coworkers, whether to work from home or the office is, in my experience, far and away the best possible arrangement. Even when my commute was 2 hours each way, I still chose to go into the office once every week or two (and worked from home the rest of the time).
burlesona 5y ago
The commute thing depends on where exactly you live and work. I worked in SF for years, but lived in the city and biked to work. It was a nice commute, a great office, and I loved our neighborhood. These kinds of things are just really hard to generalize.
- Spooky23 5y ago
  Yes and no. Lots of exceptions exist. But you can look at data like stuff from the Census Bureau and see detailed comparisons of commute times in different locales that give you a sense of the variation.

RHSeeger 5y ago

That's not how I read it. Rather, I read it as the _ability_ to work from home is _obviously_ superior. As some people do better remotely and some do better in the office, requiring that everyone come into the office is an inferior choice. Admittedly, even that isn't unambiguously true (and neither would be the reverse).

yupper32 5y ago
> requiring that everyone come into the office is an inferior choice For many, going into the office is their preference because everyone is required to go into the office. For a while I may be the only person going into the office on my team, which defeats the whole point. I want to be in the office because I work better when my team is around in person.
- RHSeeger 5y ago
  > I want to be in the office because I work better when my team is around in person. That's pretty much why I said that allowing remote work isn't unambiguously the best choice. There's negatives to every arrangement, and your scenario is one of the negatives to allowing remote work. Personally, I don't think it's enough of negative to counteract the positives, but it's enough that it's worth having the discussion.