[dupe] with previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36515787 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36515787 Both the Economist piece and the

[dupe] with previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36515787 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36515787 Both the Economist piece and the Harvard study are flawed in a bunch of obvious ways, too numerous to fully rehash in a thread this old. But most chiefly, for the Economist: the idea that a study or two about one particular kind of work applies to all other kinds of work. The the Harvard study - conflating or ignoring a whole bunch of other factors, such as differences in equipment / connectivity; the fact that many of these call centers had to expand rapidly during the pandemic (and hence bring less experienced workers on board), etc. Basically the kind of stuff we expect from people who (1) themselves don't do, and haven't done these other kinds of work (such as tech stuff) that they are claiming would be performed much better, and result in better employee retention when done in an open-plan office with a 2.5 hour commute each way, and (2) probably wrote a good chunk, if not all of what we're reading while WFH.