5 ms·

- Too few homes/high costs: WFH improves it (both allowing people to live elsewhere AND improving supply). - ICE vehicles are contributing to poor air quality/

- Too few homes/high costs: WFH improves it (both allowing people to live elsewhere AND improving supply). - ICE vehicles are contributing to poor air quality/climate change: WFH improves it (less commuting, lower traffic, etc) - Rural areas are losing population, suffering from poverty: WFH improves it (relatively affluent families can move there) - Suburban areas have poor walkability/local shopping/facilities: WFH improves it since people will spend more time there. The people who seem to be fighting this are corporations that hold commercial real-estate (and the media companies they run). Really just goes to show that most of their statements about the environment are just nonsense (looking at Apple in particular).

SpaceManNabs 4y ago
> this are corporations that hold commercial real-estate While the executives enjoy all the benefits of being remote :)
- bluefirebrand 4y ago
  You wouldn't want them to have to actually be accountable for the things they say, would you?
0xfaded 4y ago
Total (not anecdotal individual's) productity: WFH does ??? I agree that WFH is positive in all the ways you mentioned. If all companies really believed it improved overall productivity we'd be there already.
- Someone1234 4y ago
  We cannot reliably measure medium to long-term productivity with or without WFH. I find it a little galling though that the "Pro WFH" side needs to prove it, but the "Nay WFH" side doesn't simply because we've arbitrarily pinned that as normalcy. I've read studies that support both modalities, and based on comparing their methodology it seems very easy to construct them to show any conclusion you set out to show. I'd argue given the benefits I set out above (and others), a higher burden of proof should be asked for in-office, rather than just accept it as the De facto standard and setting the bar high to challenge it. If they both started on even footing WFH would win because the benefits are quantifiable, whereas in-office are anecdotal. PS - In the above I even forgot all the family benefits of WFH.
- AlotOfReading 4y ago
  I'm not suggesting that WFH is "plainly rational", but we have plenty of examples where the corporate world will persist in irrational beliefs long after any principled approach would have given up. How many years did it take for the corporate world to get over the belief that women could only be nurses, secretaries, and typists, for example? Corporations are made up of people and they're not collectively beholden to any particular logic or rationality.
- throwbadubadu 4y ago
  You'd be surprised how little is based on facts and data and how much is feelings and beliefs and just somehow reconfirming them... on all levels far beyond WFH/WFO debates (:
- lamontcg 4y ago
  We've had study after study since at least 2010 that open office plans are horrible for productivity and yet they still keep getting built.
ilyanep 4y ago
People need to stop with this whole "only commercial real estate supports working from the office" nonsense. Some of us simply want our job to provide us with a space where we can work that isn't 10 feet away from where we spend the rest of our day, the same way that our job provides us with other tools we need. Not that I'm necessarily defending forced RTO but I hate this framing of the issues. Also if your vision of WFH is that everyone sprawls out then it doesn't solve some of your other issues: people will still need to use their vehicles to get places (because unless we solve the root issue of 'too few homes' then those people will be spread out from each other or services to not create more cities with too few homes) and their sprawled out suburban communities will not suddenly become more walkable. They'll just drive everywhere.
- ghaff 4y ago
  I don't actually believe in the whole commercial real estate conspiracy. The employers who actually have the agency here are presumably mostly not so stupid as to be making decisions based on (often relatively short-term) sunk costs. But if those same employers are OK with employees who want to and can productively work from home, they're also justified in largely ignoring the preferences of employees who would prefer a bustling in-person office.
  - bugglebeetle 4y ago
    It’s not so much about individual investments, but how commercial real estate sits as an asset class in wealthy people’s portfolios generally. There’s no scenario where a 2008 for commercial real estate doesn’t cost them a lot of money, so it’s in their material interest to push for back to office.
    - ghaff 4y ago
      That's sufficiently indirect and diffuse that I don't really believe it. That's a bit like Amazon is a non-trivial part of my stock portfolio even through index funds so I'm going to make us go all-in on AWS for that reason (as opposed to other herd-following reasons that may be good or bad). Especially among execs who have so much wealth that commercial real estate holdings, much less the ones they can directly influence, are in the noise.
kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
> Suburban areas have poor walkability Postwar suburbs have poor walkability. Neighborhoods laid out before the car infatuation set in are still decent places to live.
- brewdad 4y ago
  In most cases, those are close-in neighborhoods that few would consider suburbs. Inner ring suburbs might qualify but those usually mean compromising on home size or school quality.
  - rufus_foreman 4y ago
    Streetcar suburbs were close-in neighborhoods that were built on streetcar lines (and horsecar lines before that) and were typically a mix of single family, 2 family, and 4 family residences with some commercial properties at intersections (corner stores, etc.) along with a few larger apartment buildings. They started being built in many cities in the US around the 1880s. They were fairly walkable but people typically needed to use the streetcar to get to work in the central core of the city. They're a little less walkable now, at least where I live, because the corner stores no longer exist, people go to big box grocery stores. Streetcar suburbs aren't considered suburbs now?
nomel 4y ago
> about the environment are just nonsense (looking at Apple in particular). What's this in reference to, with Apple? I don't recall any communication that their in-office policy was related to the environment.
- bart_spoon 4y ago
  I think it’s in reference to the many climate related pledges Apple has made regarding the sustainability of their manufacturing and recycling.
codeddesign 4y ago
I’m sorry, but you blame ICE vehicle??
pengaru 4y ago
> Really just goes to show that most of their statements about the environment are just nonsense (looking at Apple in particular). It's not that they're nonsense, they're simply whatever those corporations deem to be most profitable to say. To expect differently is misguided. It's exceedingly rare for what's most profitable to project/say to align with what's most profitable to do. Even for individuals... "do as I say not as I do" is an idiom older than dirt. Doesn't make it right, corporations are incentivized to behave like psychopaths. But it's not nonsense, it speaks volumes to what a given business is appealing to. In my experience they're often most vocal about the aspects they're actually behaving the worst in.

SpaceManNabs 4y ago

> this are corporations that hold commercial real-estate While the executives enjoy all the benefits of being remote :)

bluefirebrand 4y ago
You wouldn't want them to have to actually be accountable for the things they say, would you?

0xfaded 4y ago

Total (not anecdotal individual's) productity: WFH does ??? I agree that WFH is positive in all the ways you mentioned. If all companies really believed it improved overall productivity we'd be there already.

Someone1234 4y ago
We cannot reliably measure medium to long-term productivity with or without WFH. I find it a little galling though that the "Pro WFH" side needs to prove it, but the "Nay WFH" side doesn't simply because we've arbitrarily pinned that as normalcy. I've read studies that support both modalities, and based on comparing their methodology it seems very easy to construct them to show any conclusion you set out to show. I'd argue given the benefits I set out above (and others), a higher burden of proof should be asked for in-office, rather than just accept it as the De facto standard and setting the bar high to challenge it. If they both started on even footing WFH would win because the benefits are quantifiable, whereas in-office are anecdotal. PS - In the above I even forgot all the family benefits of WFH.
AlotOfReading 4y ago
I'm not suggesting that WFH is "plainly rational", but we have plenty of examples where the corporate world will persist in irrational beliefs long after any principled approach would have given up. How many years did it take for the corporate world to get over the belief that women could only be nurses, secretaries, and typists, for example? Corporations are made up of people and they're not collectively beholden to any particular logic or rationality.
throwbadubadu 4y ago
You'd be surprised how little is based on facts and data and how much is feelings and beliefs and just somehow reconfirming them... on all levels far beyond WFH/WFO debates (:
lamontcg 4y ago
We've had study after study since at least 2010 that open office plans are horrible for productivity and yet they still keep getting built.

ilyanep 4y ago

People need to stop with this whole "only commercial real estate supports working from the office" nonsense. Some of us simply want our job to provide us with a space where we can work that isn't 10 feet away from where we spend the rest of our day, the same way that our job provides us with other tools we need. Not that I'm necessarily defending forced RTO but I hate this framing of the issues. Also if your vision of WFH is that everyone sprawls out then it doesn't solve some of your other issues: people will still need to use their vehicles to get places (because unless we solve the root issue of 'too few homes' then those people will be spread out from each other or services to not create more cities with too few homes) and their sprawled out suburban communities will not suddenly become more walkable. They'll just drive everywhere.

ghaff 4y ago
I don't actually believe in the whole commercial real estate conspiracy. The employers who actually have the agency here are presumably mostly not so stupid as to be making decisions based on (often relatively short-term) sunk costs. But if those same employers are OK with employees who want to and can productively work from home, they're also justified in largely ignoring the preferences of employees who would prefer a bustling in-person office.
- bugglebeetle 4y ago
  It’s not so much about individual investments, but how commercial real estate sits as an asset class in wealthy people’s portfolios generally. There’s no scenario where a 2008 for commercial real estate doesn’t cost them a lot of money, so it’s in their material interest to push for back to office.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    That's sufficiently indirect and diffuse that I don't really believe it. That's a bit like Amazon is a non-trivial part of my stock portfolio even through index funds so I'm going to make us go all-in on AWS for that reason (as opposed to other herd-following reasons that may be good or bad). Especially among execs who have so much wealth that commercial real estate holdings, much less the ones they can directly influence, are in the noise.

kevin_thibedeau 4y ago

> Suburban areas have poor walkability Postwar suburbs have poor walkability. Neighborhoods laid out before the car infatuation set in are still decent places to live.

brewdad 4y ago
In most cases, those are close-in neighborhoods that few would consider suburbs. Inner ring suburbs might qualify but those usually mean compromising on home size or school quality.
- rufus_foreman 4y ago
  Streetcar suburbs were close-in neighborhoods that were built on streetcar lines (and horsecar lines before that) and were typically a mix of single family, 2 family, and 4 family residences with some commercial properties at intersections (corner stores, etc.) along with a few larger apartment buildings. They started being built in many cities in the US around the 1880s. They were fairly walkable but people typically needed to use the streetcar to get to work in the central core of the city. They're a little less walkable now, at least where I live, because the corner stores no longer exist, people go to big box grocery stores. Streetcar suburbs aren't considered suburbs now?

nomel 4y ago

> about the environment are just nonsense (looking at Apple in particular). What's this in reference to, with Apple? I don't recall any communication that their in-office policy was related to the environment.

bart_spoon 4y ago
I think it’s in reference to the many climate related pledges Apple has made regarding the sustainability of their manufacturing and recycling.

codeddesign 4y ago

I’m sorry, but you blame ICE vehicle??

pengaru 4y ago

> Really just goes to show that most of their statements about the environment are just nonsense (looking at Apple in particular). It's not that they're nonsense, they're simply whatever those corporations deem to be most profitable to say. To expect differently is misguided. It's exceedingly rare for what's most profitable to project/say to align with what's most profitable to do. Even for individuals... "do as I say not as I do" is an idiom older than dirt. Doesn't make it right, corporations are incentivized to behave like psychopaths. But it's not nonsense, it speaks volumes to what a given business is appealing to. In my experience they're often most vocal about the aspects they're actually behaving the worst in.