5 ms·

Although it is pretty strong evidence office space is a boondoggle. That’s a lot of pointless overhead costs that hurt the bottom line. I like seeing my peers

by jfoutz 3y ago

Although it is pretty strong evidence office space is a boondoggle. That’s a lot of pointless overhead costs that hurt the bottom line. I like seeing my peers in person. I like hashing things out in person. Apparently that’s a waste of time and money.

Garlef 3y ago
> That’s a lot of pointless overhead costs that hurt the bottom line. Or put the other way: Remote work let's the employee pay for the office space.
- bilekas 3y ago
  Not quite, you're going to be paying rent for example regardless, you may have to invest in some office furniture which is usually subsidized but if not then consider the savings you would make through the year overall, perhaps transportation costs, lunches etc. Things add up fiscally. Ignoring the lifestyle benefits.
  - 331c8c71 3y ago
    In many places on Earth one would need to pay a substantially higher rent/price to get an extra room to use as an office. And in a family situation one would ideally need two extra rooms...
    - raizer88 3y ago
      Yes, but in a remote work family you can buy an house everywhere. You pay a lot less in rent outside the city.
      - marcosdumay 3y ago
        You don't have work anymore as a constraint, but it's not the only constraint to where people live. If you are single and want to live alone, you can certainly optimize the hell out of housing costs. But of course, each single constraint you remove will probably let you reduce your costs by a bit.
      - jen20 3y ago
        Working remote need not be conflated with wanting to live in the suburbs. Indeed part of the reason I negotiated remote was because I live downtown, and the office is way out in the burbs.
  - CalRobert 3y ago
    This is nominally true but when I was looking for a place to rent I needed to be sure it had a space for remote work, which made it more expensive. I tried working from a desk in a wide part of my hallway or in my room (shared with my spouse) and it really didn't work. If you have young kids a separate room is pretty much a must, and ideally, a separate structure (like a small backyard office).
    - rob74 3y ago
      Yeah, I guess this aspect is underappreciated here on HN: most "hackers" also hack in their spare time, so probably already have a desk (maybe even a separate room) where they have good working conditions at home.
      - CalRobert 3y ago
        I do this too, but generally after the kids go to bed in which case the couch is fine.
- SantalBlush 3y ago
  It's generally more expensive to buy/rent a smaller place in a metro area near the office and commute there than it is to buy/rent a place with a home office in a more reasonably priced area. When all expenses are considered, working in-office can (and often does) cost the employee way more money than remote.
- potta_coffee 3y ago
  That tradeoff is worth it to me because driving on the freeway every day is nerve wracking and soul destroying.
PeterStuer 3y ago
You forget that the same 'investors' that own the companies, also own the buildings and all the companies that finance, build and service the buildings as well as the whole 'economy' fueled by employees commuting and lunching etc.
akira2501 3y ago
> evidence office space is a boondoggle It's a buggy whip. The internet is still relatively young, it hasn't fully dispatched with last centuries ideas just yet. As has been noted, the investor class failed to predict the consequence of cheap and wide pipes in homes as a matter of course.
g96alqdm0x 3y ago
that’s just fine and good for you, but please don’t impose your preferences on the rest of us.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- californical 3y ago
  Why not? Companies will eventually sort into ones where likeminded people are together. Some will be more friendly to remote than others. If I want to work in person with people, I’ll join a company that agrees. If someone wants to be remote, they might have to join a different company.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - raizer88 3y ago
    Because firms that are on-site-only don't scale unless they pay top of the line money to move people. Access to a remote workforce is a force multiplier that will be more relevant the more time we go forward.
  - Levitz 3y ago
    Assuming that there are no differences in productivity, working on-site is borderline morally evil. It's unhealthier (loads of sleep deprivation out there), it's bad for the environment and its costs are higher. We can argue all day if the perks of in-person work are worth the cost, but if there aren't any perks besides "I just prefer it that way" I don't think there is even a valid discussion to have. We are talking some of the largest CO2 reductions possible from the average fellow together with more free time, less usage of infrastructure and possibly changes in the housing market. A corporation doing this "just because" is comparable to a corporation purchasing mattresses to burn them in an open field "just because"
    - CalRobert 3y ago

by jfoutz 3y ago

Garlef 3y ago

> That’s a lot of pointless overhead costs that hurt the bottom line. Or put the other way: Remote work let's the employee pay for the office space.

bilekas 3y ago
Not quite, you're going to be paying rent for example regardless, you may have to invest in some office furniture which is usually subsidized but if not then consider the savings you would make through the year overall, perhaps transportation costs, lunches etc. Things add up fiscally. Ignoring the lifestyle benefits.
- 331c8c71 3y ago
  In many places on Earth one would need to pay a substantially higher rent/price to get an extra room to use as an office. And in a family situation one would ideally need two extra rooms...
  - raizer88 3y ago
    Yes, but in a remote work family you can buy an house everywhere. You pay a lot less in rent outside the city.
    - marcosdumay 3y ago
      You don't have work anymore as a constraint, but it's not the only constraint to where people live. If you are single and want to live alone, you can certainly optimize the hell out of housing costs. But of course, each single constraint you remove will probably let you reduce your costs by a bit.
    - jen20 3y ago
      Working remote need not be conflated with wanting to live in the suburbs. Indeed part of the reason I negotiated remote was because I live downtown, and the office is way out in the burbs.
- CalRobert 3y ago
  This is nominally true but when I was looking for a place to rent I needed to be sure it had a space for remote work, which made it more expensive. I tried working from a desk in a wide part of my hallway or in my room (shared with my spouse) and it really didn't work. If you have young kids a separate room is pretty much a must, and ideally, a separate structure (like a small backyard office).
  - rob74 3y ago
    Yeah, I guess this aspect is underappreciated here on HN: most "hackers" also hack in their spare time, so probably already have a desk (maybe even a separate room) where they have good working conditions at home.
    - CalRobert 3y ago
      I do this too, but generally after the kids go to bed in which case the couch is fine.
SantalBlush 3y ago
It's generally more expensive to buy/rent a smaller place in a metro area near the office and commute there than it is to buy/rent a place with a home office in a more reasonably priced area. When all expenses are considered, working in-office can (and often does) cost the employee way more money than remote.
potta_coffee 3y ago
That tradeoff is worth it to me because driving on the freeway every day is nerve wracking and soul destroying.

PeterStuer 3y ago

You forget that the same 'investors' that own the companies, also own the buildings and all the companies that finance, build and service the buildings as well as the whole 'economy' fueled by employees commuting and lunching etc.

akira2501 3y ago

> evidence office space is a boondoggle It's a buggy whip. The internet is still relatively young, it hasn't fully dispatched with last centuries ideas just yet. As has been noted, the investor class failed to predict the consequence of cheap and wide pipes in homes as a matter of course.

g96alqdm0x 3y ago

that’s just fine and good for you, but please don’t impose your preferences on the rest of us.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
californical 3y ago
Why not? Companies will eventually sort into ones where likeminded people are together. Some will be more friendly to remote than others. If I want to work in person with people, I’ll join a company that agrees. If someone wants to be remote, they might have to join a different company.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- raizer88 3y ago
  Because firms that are on-site-only don't scale unless they pay top of the line money to move people. Access to a remote workforce is a force multiplier that will be more relevant the more time we go forward.
- Levitz 3y ago
  Assuming that there are no differences in productivity, working on-site is borderline morally evil. It's unhealthier (loads of sleep deprivation out there), it's bad for the environment and its costs are higher. We can argue all day if the perks of in-person work are worth the cost, but if there aren't any perks besides "I just prefer it that way" I don't think there is even a valid discussion to have. We are talking some of the largest CO2 reductions possible from the average fellow together with more free time, less usage of infrastructure and possibly changes in the housing market. A corporation doing this "just because" is comparable to a corporation purchasing mattresses to burn them in an open field "just because"
  - CalRobert 3y ago