6 ms·

I've been working remotely for 15 years. The pandemic didn't really change anything for me as my company is in another state (and now, another country). While

I've been working remotely for 15 years. The pandemic didn't really change anything for me as my company is in another state (and now, another country). While I wouldn't have it any other way, I do think collaboration is pretty easy. I have multiple meetings a day with multiple teams and we have always been able to get projects completed. There are so many collaboration tools out there and with modern, fast, Internet speeds, it's like you're in the same room as the other person. Some issues I have noticed: Managers need to know how to manage remotely. When a manager can't manage remotely, it shows, and it's bad. A bad manager will just blame the employee (which happened to me). Something else I noticed is that I am just not that close to my co-workers. While I have a social life outside of work. Many people use work as a social outlet and it can be very lonely working remotely. I think this is all bullshit. It most likely has to do with rental contracts the company signed and not wanting it to go to waste.

add-sub-mul-div 3y ago
> I think this is all bullshit. It most likely has to do with rental contracts the company signed and not wanting it to go to waste. This is the sunk cost fallacy. While you've overlooked it, I promise you they haven't. If they already have the lease, they'd be happy to let the building sit empty without paying for utilities, security, etc. They'd be happy to offload facilities costs to employees.
- willsmith72 3y ago
  I don't buy that for a second. To C-level executives and the members of a board, if we're paying for an office, 99% of the time they're gonna say "use it". They're not thinking about sunk costs.
  - jonas21 3y ago
    Nobody thinks that way. If they could save money right now by not paying for utilities and support staff without sacrificing productivity, they absolutely would do it. And eventually that lease is going to come up for renewal, and they'd love to be able to cut costs then too. Bringing everyone back to the office makes that impossible, but they've decided it's worth it.
    - willsmith72 3y ago
      Just not true. I literally know of business owners/C-levels who think this way. "We're not just gonna leave this space here empty when we're already paying for it". Things like utilities and support staff on large business park leases are often included or heavily discounted, not to mention that they're usually tax-deductible. Where are you getting your info?
- smarmgoblin 3y ago
  TFA suggests these companies hold large amounts of commercial real estate as long-term investments, so “let the lease expire” is likely not an option.
  - shuntress 3y ago
    Maybe I'm misinformed but if they are leasing the space doesn't that mean they don't own it? EDIT: And if they DO own it, it they would probably prefer to pay some rental management company to rent it out as office space for passive income rather than fill it with their own expensive employees.
    - smarmgoblin 3y ago
      I think you’re right, and there are multiple reasons executives don’t see office space as a “sunk cost.” A small part may even be that they value work done in-office more than work done remotely. But just pointing out it’s not the most plausible objection to remote work.
- bbor 3y ago
  What is the job of a chief executive? Optimists say “make the company more profitable”, pessimists say “grow personal wealth and prestige“. Given the widely reported cases of decision makers in big tech also holding massive investments in commercial real estate, along with general “damn kids are lazy and want to WFH so that I can’t watch them” dogma, makes me a pessimist.
  - sir0010010 3y ago
    I remember reading arguments that executive should try to maximize the value of their shareholders' portfolios rather than just the firm itself. Which leads to interesting incentives that don't exactly align with the benefits you would want to get out of a market economy, such as firm A not entering firm B's market to avoid driving down retail prices, even if it would be beneficial for firm A on its own. So, the argument would be that if a lot of a firm's shareholders also own commercial real estate, it would be in the firm's shareholders interest for RTO, even if it wouldn't be in the individual firm's best interest.
- TheCoelacanth 3y ago
  "Sunk cost fallacy" is a phrase precisely because it's something that people often do. No one would have bothered making up a name for it if people consistently avoided making that mistake.
closeparen 3y ago
If that's true, we should expect office work to blow over in <=10 years when the leases expire.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  On the contrary, it’ll happen much sooner. About $626B in debt is coming due for debt collateralized by office buildings in the near term (my note: refinancing? at these interest rates? hooboy). I'd expect much more rapid consolidation, office demos, and conversions to residential considering the financial pain. > Landlords who try to hang on and weather the storm are likely to take a bigger hit than those who cut their losses more quickly, according to Bitner. > “There’s going to be a reckoning,” he said, “and everybody that waited to deal with the problem is going to regret they did.” With my apologies to Marie-Antoinette, "Let them take haircuts." https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-23/landlords-with-1-2-trillion-of-debt-face-rising-default-risks https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-23/landlords... | https://archive.is/2oRH8 https://archive.is/2oRH8 (Landlords With $1.2 Trillion of Debt Face Rising Default Risks) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36901012 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36901012 | https://archive.is/ELJET https://archive.is/ELJET (US Office Space Is on Track to Shrink for First Time on Record)
  - vsareto 3y ago
    >conversions to residential There's going to be a rude awakening if they think that's a good solution
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      Cost is $100-$500/sq ft. Sometimes the math pencils out better than demoing the building or eating a loss keeping it in service as office, especially if local govs are giving incentives to keep the potential economic benefits in the area. No emotions, build a model, execute on the most favorable scenario. It's just an asset. EDIT: @bbor Absolutely. I believe the challenge is everyone's incentive is inertia. Cities don't want to lose tax dollars and economic activity, even though they will. Asset owners don't want to take haircuts, even though they will. I'm a strong union supporter so workers have agency over their working arrangements, versus being dragged back to the office because some bro who lucked into leadership says "because I say so." Rarely does anyone include happiness and quality of life in these metrics and models, which is unfortunate. Hope this helps.
tick_tock_tick 3y ago
> it's like you're in the same room as the other person. Even the biggest fans of remote work won't go that far. I think you've forgotten what it's like to work in person.
- bbor 3y ago
  I’d go that far! Whatever’s present in a cramped meeting room (or, in modern big tech, some random chairs because all the meeting rooms are reserved) that isn’t in a zoom call, I don’t want ;). Maybe you could clarify what you meant?
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    Latency. Body language. Eye contact. It all leads to constant interruptions and people speaking over others because all of the natural cues we rely on are missing or time-shifted. Not to mention the ability to "read the room". You're often trying to gauge what other people are thinking -- are they receptive, confused, afraid to ask a question, satisfied, etc. This is far, far more difficult over Zoom.
    - kaashif 3y ago
      Presenting some idea to the team on Zoom when everyone has their cameras off is really bad. People speak but you can't tell when they're going to speak, or who looks confused and might have a question on the tip of their tongue. Even with cameras on it's hard to tell this stuff. In person it's easy. It's possible some people (e.g. me) rely on these cues more, or are just uncomfortable with everyone constantly speaking over eachother, or effectively having to interrupt and talk over others. If two people start speaking at the same time on Zoom, the optimal strategy is probably to just keep speaking and the other person will stop.
  - shuntress 3y ago
    The bandwidth for communication in person is orders of magnitude higher. It is obviously possible to waste or reduce that bandwidth to the point that you would be as efficient online but it is also possible to utilize that higher capacity effectively.
gottorf 3y ago
> with modern, fast, Internet speeds, it's like you're in the same room as the other person. I've been working remotely for nearly as long, and like anything else, it has its advantages and disadvantages. But this assertion is patently false, at least for me. I have a symmetric gigabit fiber connection at home, with 10GbE hardwired everything in my LAN. No tool I use, be it Zoom, Meet, Teams, whatever, comes even close to being in the same room as another person. The combination of latency (however slight) and imperfect duplex sound transmission between different equipment means that people are constantly inadvertently cutting each other off.
- midasuni 3y ago
  I started working remotely from my team in 2011. By 2014 the people remaining in Hq had closed most meeting rooms and people were expected to dial in from their hot desks - nowhere near each other. It was all the downsides of being in the office with the downsides of video conferencing.
  - gottorf 3y ago
    That sounds like a hilariously bad decision.
    - ilc 3y ago
      Now, just imagine it being done so they can: - Have more space for their open office plan. - Allow managers to have their own offices. Morale? Who needs that.
      - midasuni 3y ago
        Partly because most meetings waste time (moving around a large building, waiting for peoppe to get there from the previous meeting, etc), but generally to reduce the floor space used and reduce the property portfolio The opportunity of covid to get rid of more desks was great, and we’ve closed two more buildings in central london thanks to it.
- 3y ago
apercu 3y ago
I think certain kinds of work lend themselves to 100% remote being OK. I have worked remotely for about 10-11 years total out of my career. I just had to fly to client sites every once in a while, or drive in to the city to attend meetings. The best thing about covid is that I haven't had to do either for a couple of years and the time saved (I don't work in airports or on planes, or obviously not while driving) has made me _more_ productive while spending less time on work (getting to and from client offices). Face time now and then is a good thing, but, like I said, it depends on the type of work one is doing.
elpool2 3y ago
My company has been fully remote since 2020, I agree that collaboration is still easy. The sort of meetings where we used to sit in a conference room and brainstorm on a whiteboard just now happen over Teams with screen sharing. I do think it's much easier when everyone is remote though. It sucks when half the people in a meeting are in a conference room and the rest are remote. You end up dealing with dumb technical difficulties and its too easy to exclude virtual folks from the conversation.

add-sub-mul-div 3y ago

> I think this is all bullshit. It most likely has to do with rental contracts the company signed and not wanting it to go to waste. This is the sunk cost fallacy. While you've overlooked it, I promise you they haven't. If they already have the lease, they'd be happy to let the building sit empty without paying for utilities, security, etc. They'd be happy to offload facilities costs to employees.

willsmith72 3y ago
I don't buy that for a second. To C-level executives and the members of a board, if we're paying for an office, 99% of the time they're gonna say "use it". They're not thinking about sunk costs.
- jonas21 3y ago
  Nobody thinks that way. If they could save money right now by not paying for utilities and support staff without sacrificing productivity, they absolutely would do it. And eventually that lease is going to come up for renewal, and they'd love to be able to cut costs then too. Bringing everyone back to the office makes that impossible, but they've decided it's worth it.
  - willsmith72 3y ago
    Just not true. I literally know of business owners/C-levels who think this way. "We're not just gonna leave this space here empty when we're already paying for it". Things like utilities and support staff on large business park leases are often included or heavily discounted, not to mention that they're usually tax-deductible. Where are you getting your info?
smarmgoblin 3y ago
TFA suggests these companies hold large amounts of commercial real estate as long-term investments, so “let the lease expire” is likely not an option.
- shuntress 3y ago
  Maybe I'm misinformed but if they are leasing the space doesn't that mean they don't own it? EDIT: And if they DO own it, it they would probably prefer to pay some rental management company to rent it out as office space for passive income rather than fill it with their own expensive employees.
  - smarmgoblin 3y ago
    I think you’re right, and there are multiple reasons executives don’t see office space as a “sunk cost.” A small part may even be that they value work done in-office more than work done remotely. But just pointing out it’s not the most plausible objection to remote work.
bbor 3y ago
What is the job of a chief executive? Optimists say “make the company more profitable”, pessimists say “grow personal wealth and prestige“. Given the widely reported cases of decision makers in big tech also holding massive investments in commercial real estate, along with general “damn kids are lazy and want to WFH so that I can’t watch them” dogma, makes me a pessimist.
- sir0010010 3y ago
  I remember reading arguments that executive should try to maximize the value of their shareholders' portfolios rather than just the firm itself. Which leads to interesting incentives that don't exactly align with the benefits you would want to get out of a market economy, such as firm A not entering firm B's market to avoid driving down retail prices, even if it would be beneficial for firm A on its own. So, the argument would be that if a lot of a firm's shareholders also own commercial real estate, it would be in the firm's shareholders interest for RTO, even if it wouldn't be in the individual firm's best interest.
TheCoelacanth 3y ago
"Sunk cost fallacy" is a phrase precisely because it's something that people often do. No one would have bothered making up a name for it if people consistently avoided making that mistake.

closeparen 3y ago

If that's true, we should expect office work to blow over in <=10 years when the leases expire.

toomuchtodo 3y ago
On the contrary, it’ll happen much sooner. About $626B in debt is coming due for debt collateralized by office buildings in the near term (my note: refinancing? at these interest rates? hooboy). I'd expect much more rapid consolidation, office demos, and conversions to residential considering the financial pain. > Landlords who try to hang on and weather the storm are likely to take a bigger hit than those who cut their losses more quickly, according to Bitner. > “There’s going to be a reckoning,” he said, “and everybody that waited to deal with the problem is going to regret they did.” With my apologies to Marie-Antoinette, "Let them take haircuts." https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-23/landlords-with-1-2-trillion-of-debt-face-rising-default-risks https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-23/landlords... | https://archive.is/2oRH8 https://archive.is/2oRH8 (Landlords With $1.2 Trillion of Debt Face Rising Default Risks) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36901012 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36901012 | https://archive.is/ELJET https://archive.is/ELJET (US Office Space Is on Track to Shrink for First Time on Record)
- vsareto 3y ago
  >conversions to residential There's going to be a rude awakening if they think that's a good solution
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    Cost is $100-$500/sq ft. Sometimes the math pencils out better than demoing the building or eating a loss keeping it in service as office, especially if local govs are giving incentives to keep the potential economic benefits in the area. No emotions, build a model, execute on the most favorable scenario. It's just an asset. EDIT: @bbor Absolutely. I believe the challenge is everyone's incentive is inertia. Cities don't want to lose tax dollars and economic activity, even though they will. Asset owners don't want to take haircuts, even though they will. I'm a strong union supporter so workers have agency over their working arrangements, versus being dragged back to the office because some bro who lucked into leadership says "because I say so." Rarely does anyone include happiness and quality of life in these metrics and models, which is unfortunate. Hope this helps.

tick_tock_tick 3y ago

> it's like you're in the same room as the other person. Even the biggest fans of remote work won't go that far. I think you've forgotten what it's like to work in person.

bbor 3y ago
I’d go that far! Whatever’s present in a cramped meeting room (or, in modern big tech, some random chairs because all the meeting rooms are reserved) that isn’t in a zoom call, I don’t want ;). Maybe you could clarify what you meant?
- crazygringo 3y ago
  Latency. Body language. Eye contact. It all leads to constant interruptions and people speaking over others because all of the natural cues we rely on are missing or time-shifted. Not to mention the ability to "read the room". You're often trying to gauge what other people are thinking -- are they receptive, confused, afraid to ask a question, satisfied, etc. This is far, far more difficult over Zoom.
  - kaashif 3y ago
    Presenting some idea to the team on Zoom when everyone has their cameras off is really bad. People speak but you can't tell when they're going to speak, or who looks confused and might have a question on the tip of their tongue. Even with cameras on it's hard to tell this stuff. In person it's easy. It's possible some people (e.g. me) rely on these cues more, or are just uncomfortable with everyone constantly speaking over eachother, or effectively having to interrupt and talk over others. If two people start speaking at the same time on Zoom, the optimal strategy is probably to just keep speaking and the other person will stop.
- shuntress 3y ago
  The bandwidth for communication in person is orders of magnitude higher. It is obviously possible to waste or reduce that bandwidth to the point that you would be as efficient online but it is also possible to utilize that higher capacity effectively.

gottorf 3y ago

> with modern, fast, Internet speeds, it's like you're in the same room as the other person. I've been working remotely for nearly as long, and like anything else, it has its advantages and disadvantages. But this assertion is patently false, at least for me. I have a symmetric gigabit fiber connection at home, with 10GbE hardwired everything in my LAN. No tool I use, be it Zoom, Meet, Teams, whatever, comes even close to being in the same room as another person. The combination of latency (however slight) and imperfect duplex sound transmission between different equipment means that people are constantly inadvertently cutting each other off.

midasuni 3y ago
I started working remotely from my team in 2011. By 2014 the people remaining in Hq had closed most meeting rooms and people were expected to dial in from their hot desks - nowhere near each other. It was all the downsides of being in the office with the downsides of video conferencing.
- gottorf 3y ago
  That sounds like a hilariously bad decision.
  - ilc 3y ago
    Now, just imagine it being done so they can: - Have more space for their open office plan. - Allow managers to have their own offices. Morale? Who needs that.
    - midasuni 3y ago
      Partly because most meetings waste time (moving around a large building, waiting for peoppe to get there from the previous meeting, etc), but generally to reduce the floor space used and reduce the property portfolio The opportunity of covid to get rid of more desks was great, and we’ve closed two more buildings in central london thanks to it.
3y ago

apercu 3y ago

I think certain kinds of work lend themselves to 100% remote being OK. I have worked remotely for about 10-11 years total out of my career. I just had to fly to client sites every once in a while, or drive in to the city to attend meetings. The best thing about covid is that I haven't had to do either for a couple of years and the time saved (I don't work in airports or on planes, or obviously not while driving) has made me _more_ productive while spending less time on work (getting to and from client offices). Face time now and then is a good thing, but, like I said, it depends on the type of work one is doing.

elpool2 3y ago

My company has been fully remote since 2020, I agree that collaboration is still easy. The sort of meetings where we used to sit in a conference room and brainstorm on a whiteboard just now happen over Teams with screen sharing. I do think it's much easier when everyone is remote though. It sucks when half the people in a meeting are in a conference room and the rest are remote. You end up dealing with dumb technical difficulties and its too easy to exclude virtual folks from the conversation.