5 ms·
> Essentially, Daco adds, productivity has rebounded above its 2017-to-2019 norms, which he believes indicates that it’s “not just a quick bounceback,” but actu
by karaterobot 3y ago
> Essentially, Daco adds, productivity has rebounded above its 2017-to-2019 norms, which he believes indicates that it’s “not just a quick bounceback,” but actually stronger than the prior trend—a positive development.
There's the quote that implies that return to office is not the explanation for this productivity rebound. Work from home is still far higher than it was in 2019, and so is productivity. While far from a smoking gun, this is more up to date evidence that execs who threatened to fire people who didn't RTO are as wrong as they seemed. The first executive who recants on their intuition that RTO would bring about an explosion of productivity above WFH will earn my respect.
My position isn't that every job that can be WFH should be, but that every person who wants to be WFH should be able to, and everyone who wants to work in an office should be able to. Even if working in an office is less productive, and costs the company a lot more money, and reduces the pool of talent, some employees still want it. Some executives do too: these people will be happier working together, so they should have that option.
- timr 3y ago> There's the quote that implies that return to office is not the explanation for this productivity rebound. Work from home is still far higher than it was in 2019, and so is productivity. ...or maybe there's another factor, and this doesn't explain anything at all. Correlation does not imply causality. We have LLMs now, we didn't have them in 2019, and productivity is up. Ergo, increased productivity must be caused by LLMs. Right?
- gedy 3y agoLLMs have only been in use for 1 year and mostly in software, WFH has been widespread for almost 4 years
- timr 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- timr 3y agoYou can pick any of a thousand other correlates and make spurious causal arguments that are just as logically valid as the one you're making.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- randomdata 3y agoGPT-3 launched in 2020.
- candiddevmike 3y agoIMO, there needs to be some kind of compensation for folks who have to go into office. Not all jobs can be WFH. At a minimum, if you have to travel in to work, that time should be paid/count towards 40. EDIT: On average, WFH folks save 5 hours a week by not having commute. That means folks going into a workplace work 5 hours more. That's not even including all of the other perks/flexibility/cost savings WFH provides.
- tharkun__ 3y agoSure, I'll live the farthest from the office in that case! I mean I would have liked this too but it isn't realistic beyond what some companies have already been doing for years before covid, which is to pay for monthly public transit passes or towards the cost of it. On the flipside it would mean companies limiting who is allowed to be in an office if that became mandatory. You live more than 15 min from the office? Sorry, WFH for you! Factory job that absolutely can't be done WFH? You better come live in our communal housing where you have 5 min walk time to work or you are not getting that job!
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- al_borland 3y agoThey’d need to find a system that doesn’t encourage long commutes. If drive time counts toward the 40, an extreme case may try to live 4 hours from work. Drive in, have lunch, drive home. People with short commutes would end up picking up the slack for those with long commutes, which could create some tension in the workplace. Why should those who are actually in the office working get compensated at the same rate as someone doing 20% less due to their shorter in-office work day?
- jethro_tell 3y agoI think you could simply set basic productivity goals and they would fail to meet those if they never worked.
- 3y ago
- el-dude-arino 3y ago[flagged]
- popularonion 3y agoWell, nobody is really comparing WFH to "in-office", as in employees having a physical office with a door, they're comparing it to open offices which is the worst possible option for software development.
- karaterobot 3y agoI think that's generally what it means to be in-office at a software company. Having dedicated offices is exceptional, open floor plans are the rule. Note that this article isn't just talking about the software industry, though, so I take your point.
- arb-spreads 3y agoMany companies have used return to office as a soft layoff. Many employees quit versus large layoffs. Things should normalize as companies optimize their workforces, office leases roll off, and remote/hybrid work becomes standardized.
- BenFranklin100 3y agoThere’s a different explanation on why WFH has increased productivity: it has expanded the labor pool available to employers beyond the geographic confines of workers within a ~ 1 hour physical commute. That is, employers and employees can more easily find mutually beneficially matches. I think this is main factor driving increased productivity, not that WFH is inherently more productive.
- randomdata 3y agoAlthough it would be surprising if WFH weren't inherently more productive given that it provides so many more productivity optimization opportunities.