3 ms·

In both cases there is an uncompensated expense by the employee. Either it’s time commuting or it’s the office space. The main disagreement here is which should

In both cases there is an uncompensated expense by the employee. Either it’s time commuting or it’s the office space. The main disagreement here is which should be valued more. In practice the massive rise in people voluntary working from home strongly implies most people value the commute time more than the lost office space. Arguably they should both be compensated, although HN consists primarily of salaried workers well above any minimum wage so that compensation is likely to come at the expense of cash/equity comp anyway.

ghaff 3y ago
Yeah, a nice home office setup is an expense, especially if you live near (or, especially, in) a major city. But, for most people, commute is a net negative even if it means having a sub-optimal setup at home. And at most companies, people still have the option of commuting even if it may be a poorer experience than pre-Covid.
- owl57 3y ago
  > commuting ... may be a poorer experience than pre-Covid Curious, what do you mean? I was WFH from 2006 to 2021, and I feel like the commute improved a bit over that time with the new vehicles and navigation apps, but otherwise not much changed, so maybe I miss something that was better immediately pre-pandemic?
  - ghaff 3y ago
    It takes me often longer drive into Boston either in the morning or in the evening as it ever did. GPS doesn't really help. I know where I'm going and the patterns are pretty predictable. (Re-reading, offices are also poorer experiences for many people post-Covid given that a lot of people aren't there.)
randomdata 3y ago
> In both cases there is an uncompensated expense by the employee. In both cases the employee factors in those expenses into the active rate they charge. If pay generally remained the same when moving to the home (and in cases when returning to the office), it seems the cost is generally deemed equivalent.
- danaris 3y ago
  This is yet another example of the fallacy of assuming that The Almighty Market will perfectly set all costs. Most employees do not have the luxury and privilege to be able to demand a raise any time they feel like they deserve one, and actually get it—either directly, from their current employer, or indirectly, by changing jobs. Yes, this includes tech employees. Remember, we don't all work within the Silicon Valley bubble.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    It seems you're confusing individuals with the general labour market. In aggregate, the workforce will adjust. The aggregate employee isn't going to put themselves in a money losing situation just to have a job. An individual might, but nobody is talking about individuals (except you).
    - danaris 3y ago
      No; that only works if the labor market, in aggregate, resembles an ideal free market. It does not. There are far too many constraints on people's employment and the information they have for it to be amenable to "free market theory".
      - randomdata 3y ago
        There is no mention or implication of there being a free market. Start a new thread if that is a subject you are interested in. Nobody in this thread is.

ghaff 3y ago

Yeah, a nice home office setup is an expense, especially if you live near (or, especially, in) a major city. But, for most people, commute is a net negative even if it means having a sub-optimal setup at home. And at most companies, people still have the option of commuting even if it may be a poorer experience than pre-Covid.

owl57 3y ago
> commuting ... may be a poorer experience than pre-Covid Curious, what do you mean? I was WFH from 2006 to 2021, and I feel like the commute improved a bit over that time with the new vehicles and navigation apps, but otherwise not much changed, so maybe I miss something that was better immediately pre-pandemic?
- ghaff 3y ago
  It takes me often longer drive into Boston either in the morning or in the evening as it ever did. GPS doesn't really help. I know where I'm going and the patterns are pretty predictable. (Re-reading, offices are also poorer experiences for many people post-Covid given that a lot of people aren't there.)

randomdata 3y ago

> In both cases there is an uncompensated expense by the employee. In both cases the employee factors in those expenses into the active rate they charge. If pay generally remained the same when moving to the home (and in cases when returning to the office), it seems the cost is generally deemed equivalent.

danaris 3y ago
This is yet another example of the fallacy of assuming that The Almighty Market will perfectly set all costs. Most employees do not have the luxury and privilege to be able to demand a raise any time they feel like they deserve one, and actually get it—either directly, from their current employer, or indirectly, by changing jobs. Yes, this includes tech employees. Remember, we don't all work within the Silicon Valley bubble.
- randomdata 3y ago
  It seems you're confusing individuals with the general labour market. In aggregate, the workforce will adjust. The aggregate employee isn't going to put themselves in a money losing situation just to have a job. An individual might, but nobody is talking about individuals (except you).
  - danaris 3y ago
    No; that only works if the labor market, in aggregate, resembles an ideal free market. It does not. There are far too many constraints on people's employment and the information they have for it to be amenable to "free market theory".
    - randomdata 3y ago
      There is no mention or implication of there being a free market. Start a new thread if that is a subject you are interested in. Nobody in this thread is.